| Summary: | app-text/sigil-1.2.1-r1 stabilisation | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | Gentoo Linux | Reporter: | Andreas Sturmlechner <asturm> |
| Component: | Stabilization | Assignee: | Arthur Zamarin <arthurzam> |
| Status: | RESOLVED FIXED | ||
| Severity: | normal | CC: | proxy-maint |
| Priority: | Normal | Keywords: | STABLEREQ |
| Version: | unspecified | Flags: | nattka:
sanity-check+
|
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| See Also: | https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=728240 | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Package list: |
app-text/sigil-1.2.1-r1 amd64 x86
|
Runtime testing required: | --- |
| Bug Depends on: | |||
| Bug Blocks: | 711120 | ||
|
Description
Andreas Sturmlechner
2020-06-16 19:02:39 UTC
Can we add arches now? No problem. The program was stable on my system, with no serious bugs upstream (only more Qt 5.15 deprecation warnings improvements). I was waiting for 30 days to pass since last change. But if you say we can continue (I'm still not perfectly sure when we can cut this time shorter), so I have no problem. I do want to ask, after successful stabilize on both arches, could someone with upstream access remove old `0.9.16-r1` version? (In reply to Arthur Zamarin from comment #2) > I was waiting for 30 days to pass since last change. But if you say we can > continue (I'm still not perfectly sure when we can cut this time shorter), > so I have no problem. A minimal patch and almost 30 days with no bug filed, good enough for me. Blame me if it doesn't work out. (In reply to Arthur Zamarin from comment #2) > I do want to ask, after successful stabilize on both arches, could someone > with upstream access remove old `0.9.16-r1` version? Ping me if I forget. x86 stable amd64 stable. Closing. |
