Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Create security policy #18537

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Oct 9, 2020
Merged

Create security policy #18537

merged 2 commits into from
Oct 9, 2020

Conversation

QuLogic
Copy link
Member

@QuLogic QuLogic commented Sep 21, 2020

PR Summary

PR Checklist

  • [n/a] Has pytest style unit tests (and pytest passes).
  • [n/a] Is Flake 8 compliant (run flake8 on changed files to check).
  • New features are documented, with examples if plot related.
  • Documentation is sphinx and numpydoc compliant (the docs should build without error).
  • Conforms to Matplotlib style conventions (install flake8-docstrings and pydocstyle<4 and run flake8 --docstring-convention=all).
  • [n/a] New features have an entry in doc/users/next_whats_new/ (follow instructions in README.rst there).
  • [n/a] API changes documented in doc/api/next_api_changes/ (follow instructions in README.rst there).

@QuLogic QuLogic added this to the v3.4.0 milestone Sep 21, 2020
@QuLogic QuLogic added the status: needs comment/discussion needs consensus on next step label Sep 21, 2020
@tacaswell
Copy link
Member

Also add a note to the release docs about updating this?

SECURITY.md Show resolved Hide resolved
Copy link
Contributor

@dopplershift dopplershift left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This seems reasonable overall to me.

@QuLogic QuLogic marked this pull request as ready for review September 28, 2020 19:55
@tacaswell tacaswell merged commit 15841b9 into master Oct 9, 2020
@tacaswell tacaswell deleted the security-policy branch October 9, 2020 19:29
@QuLogic QuLogic removed the status: needs comment/discussion needs consensus on next step label Mar 17, 2021
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

4 participants