On 2020-12-08 16:58:46 +0530, Utkarsh Gupta wrote:
> Hi Sebastian,
>
> On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 3:30 PM Sebastian Ramacher <sramac...@debian.org>
> wrote:
> > v30 was accepted. Please perform a source-only upload for the arch: all
> > packages.
>
> That should be done now! \o/
>
> > > The only reverse-{,build-}dependency is gitaly, it seems. So I'm CCing
> > > Praveen so he gets a heads up.
> >
> > Filed #976820 against gitaly.
> >
> > In any case, I'll remove golang-gopkg-libgit2-git2go.v28 and
> > gitaly from testing to unblock this transition. gitaly is blocked by
> > ruby-faraday which is currently causing a bunch of autopkgtest
> > regressions.
>
> Great, thanks for this!
>
> I do have another (stupid) question :)
> libgit2 upstream has released 1.1.0 after 1.0.1 (which is the
> transition we're pusruing). However, libgit2 1.1.0 if backwards
> compatible *but* still a transition is needed for it.
> I've already worked on updating the same in experimental and it is now
> accepted as well. Do you think we can do a 1.1.0 transition along with
> this as well?
>
> Whilst I didn't build all the reverse-{build-}dependencies but I
> believe there shouldn't be much of a problem.We could do these two transitions together, yes. But I'd prefer if you could gives us a rough estimate on the number of expected build failures in reverse dependencies. Will it need another new version of golang-gopkg-libgit2-git2go? Cheers -- Sebastian Ramacher
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
