Steven Chamberlain <ste...@pyro.eu.org> (21/05/2013): > On 21/05/13 16:36, Cyril Brulebois wrote: > > [...] I think it would be safer to keep all > > relevant changes into a zol (or any other appropriate name) branch, > > I think so too; I did take a look at this on Github. I think it would > be more accessible in Debian's repository, but ideally staged in a > branch first.
In the absence of complaints, I've done that: - base-installer: branched "zol" from master, and reset master to where it was before the buggy merge. - partman-zfs: since l10n fun appeared already, I didn't touch it. That doesn't mean it needs no review at all. - partman-base: there's a single commit, which shouldn't change anything for non-ZFS things, so I've left it untouched. It definitely needs a changelog entry though. - debian-installer: branched "zol" from master, and reset master to where it was. > I noticed for example on Github a commit that was made redundant / > invalidated by the next one. Also some commits have simultaneously > altered whitespace and code which is hard to follow. It may be > neater if the useful bits can be more neatly picked out of a branch > and merged into master occasionally (e.g. at per-feature intervals). Absolutely. Mraw, KiBi.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
