| 1 |
On Wednesday, July 6, 2016 5:10:25 PM JST, Anthony G. Basile wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 7/5/16 10:52 PM, NP-Hardass wrote: |
| 3 |
>> I think it is a little bit of a stretch to say that he's the only one to |
| 4 |
>> have an issue. Now, I've spoken with the parties involved, so my issue |
| 5 |
>> is resolved, but I had a package of mine bumped in the name of security |
| 6 |
>> without being pinged/consulted at all. I'm not attempting to point |
| 7 |
>> blame at anyone, but merely show that there are others who have been ... |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> I agree that a ping is the necessary first step, but I'm afraid of a |
| 10 |
> dispute between the maintainer and the security team. Bug #459274, |
| 11 |
> which I discussed in my previous email, should never have been file and |
| 12 |
> should never have been acted on. If the security team feels they must |
| 13 |
> touch a package, I'd like to have QA review it. The QA leadership is |
| 14 |
> ratified by the council and has a long history of dealing with these |
| 15 |
> sorts of issues which are tried and true. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
So just state such facts, as you did following the p.mask, and all would be |
| 20 |
well. It really has been and continues to be that simple. |
Archives