On Monday 20 August 2012 12:41 AM, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > There wasn't that much terminology in there. :-) >
[2012-06-27] Accepted 2.0.873-3 in unstable (low) (Ritesh Raj Sarraf) [2012-06-26] Accepted 2.0.873-2 in unstable (low) (Ritesh Raj Sarraf) [2012-05-21] Accepted 2.0.873-1 in unstable (low) (Ritesh Raj Sarraf) [2012-04-24] Accepted 2.0.872+git0.6676a1cf-2 in unstable (low) (Ritesh Raj Sarraf) [2012-04-09] Accepted 2.0.872+git0.6676a1cf-1 in experimental (low) (Ritesh Raj Sarraf) [2011-09-25] open-iscsi 2.0.872-2 MIGRATED to testing (Britney) When the udeb package got introduced (In version 2.0.872+git0.6676a1cf-1), the package never migrated to testing. I will file a feature request against the PTS that when packages don't migrate, because of issues, emails should be sent to the packager. All this time, I was under the impression that that version had already migrated to testing. I take that as my fault. > Essentially, a member of the release team needs to decide that they're > happy with the changes between the current version of open-iscsi in > testing and the version in unstable. The size of the changes means that > it'll take some time to go through. Reducing the size of that job by > producing a filtered diff that excludes e.g. documentation and > test-suite changes would likely help. Unless the udeb changes touched > anything outside of debian/ (which I would suspect they didn't) then > dropping those changes now is unlikely to make any material difference > to the size of the diff. I understand your point now. Thank you for explaining. That indeed is a lot of changes in the open-iscsi package. I will wait for your review. -- Ritesh Raj Sarraf | http://people.debian.org/~rrs Debian - The Universal Operating System
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
