Makes sense to be done in sync with bug 755704.
(In reply to Andreas Sturmlechner from comment #0) > Makes sense to be done in sync with bug 755704. Then you have to do it in the same bug. Time and time again we've seen that leaving a comment telling testers to do them in sync doesn't work.
No, it must not block security bugs just out of courtesy not to cause IUSE-dependent rebuild. There is no direct dependence on the linked bug.
(In reply to Andreas Sturmlechner from comment #2) > No, it must not block security bugs just out of courtesy not to cause > IUSE-dependent rebuild. There is no direct dependence on the linked bug. I don't understand. Which bug are you saying is blocking a security bug? I'm suggesting that you just put poppler in the other bug's stabilization list to ensure that it and icu are stabilized at the same time.
Any potential problem during stabilisation caused by additional items in the package list that need not necessarily be there. And no, I won't change my opinion even if you use capitals.
(In reply to Andreas Sturmlechner from comment #4) > And no, I won't change my opinion even if you use capitals. What?
https://bugs.gentoo.org/728964#c5
(In reply to Andreas Sturmlechner from comment #4) > Any potential problem during stabilisation caused by additional items in the > package list that need not necessarily be there. Maybe just ask the security people? The other bug's been open for two weeks. I don't think we're risking much.
(In reply to Andreas Sturmlechner from comment #6) > https://bugs.gentoo.org/728964#c5 Wow, that really must have struck a nerve or something. That wasn't my intention, so I'm sorry. But I think you're being more than a little obtuse in not doing the trivially obvious thing that will avoid unnecessary rebuilds.
No stable for you then.