On 11/21/2016 11:41 PM, Piotr Ożarowski wrote: > [Emilio Pozuelo Monfort, 2016-11-21] >> Piotr, any comment on that? > > I'm done talking with Thomas, it's always either his way or nothing.
I'm not asking for "my way", but the Debian way, which is managing transitions through the release team, as everyone does. Contrary to what you're writing, it's your own way vs everyone else's way here. > The one and only reason I uploaded 1.1 to experimental was to make it > easier to test Openstack. I completed the "transition" on Friday¹, > I didn't even need the whole weekend. Sure, I wasn't able to test all > of them as I didn't always really know how (like in this² case). > Griffith, the app I'm a co-author, wasn't (unfortunately) updated in > years... and it still works with each new X.Y SA release. What does it proves? Someone could make a hello world application that uses SQLA to do so. It will hopefully work with all versions of SQLA. > SA has also > the best unit tests I've seen in a Python library, so I'm pretty > confident 1.1 is good enough for Stretch (that's why I want to update > x.y.Z releases in stable, I was told not to do that in the past, I will > ask again for Stretch). This also is completely irrelevant to the issue I've pointed at. The issue is the reverse dependencies of SQLA, not SQLA itself. Anyway, you again fail to answer the questions raised in this thread, which is not surprising. It seem to be your strategy. I'm also very much unhappy that you're continuing to pretend that I've been trying to game you. This isn't the first time you've been very impolite (to say the least) with me in public lists. Not amused, Thomas Goirand (zigo)
