On Sat, 2012-09-15 at 10:05 +0200, Mathias Behrle wrote: > > On 14.09.2012 13:01, Mathias Behrle wrote: > > > * Convert buffer into string for vobject > > > > That's really not a particular helpful description for deciding whether > > the upload is appropriate for an unblock; upstream's changelog of "* Bug > > fixes (see mercurial logs for details)" doesn't provide much elucidation > > either. [...] > This issue is caused by the migration of the binary field format to buffer > [1]. > Writing and reading from the DB affords the conversion from buffer to string. > > Would it be adequate to post for each package the link to the mercurial > repository? The standard commit messages are linked to the reviews [1] and/or > issue numbers in the bug tracker of tryton.org to provide easy tracking > information. For this package the link can be found at [2]. [...] > [1] http://codereview.tryton.org/426003/diff/1/calendar_.py > [2] http://hg.tryton.org/2.2/modules/calendar_classification
Thanks for the links. It's possible I'm missing something, but from an initial look they don't actually provide any further information on the change. :-( [1] contains the one line diff which was already attached to your mail. From there one can reach http://codereview.tryton.org/426003/ , although the only information there other than the diff is a "message" from the committer, which appears to be entirely empty. [2] leads to http://hg.tryton.org/2.2/modules/calendar_classification/rev/efc13781a75e , which points to a commit from which the change was copied. That in turn is http://hg.tryton.org/modules/calendar_classification/rev/74d42794032d , which is simply exactly the same change on another branch with no comment / discussion there either. I appreciate that from the perspective of someone who knows the code, it's probably obvious why the change was required, but a one line of something similar to "the field in the database is a string; we need to cast as a result of moving to using a buffer in commit ABCDEF" would be beneficial to those of us who don't. (I've possibly got the reasoning wrong there, it was based on your comment above linking to [1].) > What I did already per package is to summarize those commit messages > as provided in the mercurial logs. Could you please just mark the > messages, where you need more detailed information? I'll have a go when I've got a little more free time to try and attack them as a set. There are quite a lot of them to go through though (and I notice some more this morning). :-( Regards, Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1347703652.28617.30.ca...@jacala.jungle.funky-badger.org
