On Mon, Nov 08, 2010 at 09:44:28AM +0100, Alexander Reichle-Schmehl wrote:
> Just for the record: We worked quite a bit recently on the NEW queue,
> getting it down to about 170 packages as of now. Also thanks to Luka
> who finished his coding task and helped a lot with it :)
Wow, indeed http://m
Hi!
Am 02.11.2010 10:55, schrieb Alexander Reichle-Schmehl:
> Best regards,
> Alexander, who promises to spent some more time on NEW processing in
> the coming weeks, but points out, that still more volunteers are needed
Just for the record: We worked quite a bit recently on the NEW queue,
ge
Hi!
Am 02.11.2010 15:57, schrieb Rene Engelhard:
> And because people can do such bogus things you are going to stop
> progress/testing
> completely? Doesn't make much sense to me.
Where did I said that? I said in my original mail:
>> For example, work on things that are not entirely release
On Tue, 02 Nov 2010, Julien Cristau wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 15:02:18 +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
>
> > OK, that's a reason to avoid package churn in existing source packages and
> > thus letting packages with new binaries sit in NEW for a while. It doesn't
> > apply to entirely new pack
On Tue, Nov 02, 2010 at 10:55:23AM +0100, Alexander Reichle-Schmehl wrote:
> I think there's has already been the case, that a ABI breaking library
> was accepted to experimental (hey, it was only experimental, was it?),
> and later uploaded by the maintainer to unstable, leading to unpleasant
> re
On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 15:02:18 +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> OK, that's a reason to avoid package churn in existing source packages and
> thus letting packages with new binaries sit in NEW for a while. It doesn't
> apply to entirely new packages however.
>
postgresql-9.0 was an entirely new s
Hi,
On Tue, 02 Nov 2010, Alexander Reichle-Schmehl wrote:
> Please note that we see your arguments and agree completely, but please
> also note it's not as easy as it sounds. IIRC recently PostgreSQL 9.x
> was accepted, resulting in some packages not being able to migrate to
> testing.
>
> I thi
Hi!
Am 31.10.2010 22:42, schrieb Lucas Nussbaum:
>> [..] For example, work on things that are not entirely release critical,
>> like processing the NEW queue [2], are not the highest priority currently.
>> [..]
> I must admit that I'm not too happy about that.
Neither are we. However, unless
Hi,
no harsh criticism intended (I'm only slighly affected) but I agree with
Lucas.
On Sun, 31 Oct 2010, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> I must admit that I'm not too happy about that.
>
> Despite the freeze, I think that it is important that we continue to
> support our users usually running testing/un
On 28/10/10 at 14:35 +0200, Alexander Reichle-Schmehl wrote:
> Hi!
>
> One of the side effects of the freeze [1] of our upcoming stable release -
> squeeze - is that not all tasks get done as quickly as you might be used to in
> the past. For example, work on things that are not entirely release
10 matches
Mail list logo
