On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 12:44 AM, Julien Cristau wrote:
> No, packages that aren't in testing only have their urgency ignored if
> it's more than medium. So they're candidates for migration after either
> 5 or 10 days.
Hmm, ok. Thanks for clarifying.
--
bye,
pabs
http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWis
On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 13:18:02 +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 1:14 PM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>
> > AFAICT, it's 5 days now.
>
> The default urgency in dch is medium now, which britney interprets as
> 5 days for existing packages. Packages that aren't in testing have
> their
On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 1:14 PM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> AFAICT, it's 5 days now.
The default urgency in dch is medium now, which britney interprets as
5 days for existing packages. Packages that aren't in testing have
their urgency ignored IIRC and migrate after 10 days.
--
bye,
pabs
http://w
On 02/28/2014 09:40 AM, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 12:36 PM, Peter Samuelson wrote:
>>
>> [micah]
>>> it feels like a bit too aggressive pressure for my tastes. I've seen
>>> a lot of developers of packages who have found out their package will
>>> be removed from testing, but
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 12:36 PM, Peter Samuelson wrote:
>
> [micah]
>> it feels like a bit too aggressive pressure for my tastes. I've seen
>> a lot of developers of packages who have found out their package will
>> be removed from testing, but don't have the time to resolve the
>> situation befor
Nick Phillips writes:
> And if the newer version, for example, has updated a database schema in
> a non-backward-compatible way?
The same problem would apply to testing, so there would be a very high
incentive to find a way to fix that for testing users. Backports users
would then benefit from
On Wed, 2014-02-26 at 09:47 +0100, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
> Erm, no, not at all. A package in stable-bpo can't have a newer
> version than testing when we release. With the removal there can be two
> situations:
>
> * After fixing the issue that got the package removed from testing, the
>p
* Peter Samuelson [2014-02-26 18:36:10 CET]:
> [micah]
> > it feels like a bit too aggressive pressure for my tastes. I've seen
> > a lot of developers of packages who have found out their package will
> > be removed from testing, but don't have the time to resolve the
> > situation before it gets
[micah]
> it feels like a bit too aggressive pressure for my tastes. I've seen
> a lot of developers of packages who have found out their package will
> be removed from testing, but don't have the time to resolve the
> situation before it gets removed, resulting in much pulling of hair.
If only w
Hi.
* micah [2014-02-26 16:48:45 CET]:
> Gerfried Fuchs writes:
> > Remove from stable-bpo if it's not expected to come back in is what we
> > actually do, yes. And to have an overview of these situations I created
> > myself the diffstats page:
> > http://backports.debian.org/wheezy-backp
On Feb 26, 2014 10:49 AM, "micah" wrote:
> For example, say package X has been backported at version 1.0, version
> 2.0 is uploaded to sid, transitions to jessie and then has an RC bug
> that threatens removal.
If the RC bug is properly versioned, then the 1.0 upload, which isn't
affected, should
Gerfried Fuchs writes:
> Remove from stable-bpo if it's not expected to come back in is what we
> actually do, yes. And to have an overview of these situations I created
> myself the diffstats page:
> http://backports.debian.org/wheezy-backports/overview/
>
> Looking at the "not available" pa
Hi there.
* Paul Tagliamonte [2014-02-25 23:59:05 CET]:
> I'm sending to both -devel and backports. I'm not sure which is the
> correct list. If one's wrong, feel free to drop it in replies.
>
> I've been talking with a mentee about backporting procedures, and I've
> explained why we don't b
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 3:33 PM, Paul Wise wrote:
>> What shall we do? Remove from stable-bpo? Hope an update comes around?
>> Does it make sense to revisit the rules? Does a wait until testing still
>> make sense (ok, waiting always makes sense, but beyond the 'let it
>> settle' thing)
>
> Autor
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi there,
Am 26.02.14 00:33, schrieb Paul Wise:
yes ... and the package installed from oldstable-backports is newer
then oldstable. This situation we have had sometimes in the past (eg.
php-suhosin).
The problem that a package, which is in stable-ba
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 6:59 AM, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
> However, with the new testing removals from the release team (which is
> totally great for creating an always releasable testing, many thanks for
> that), we can create a situation where stable-bpo has a newer version
> than testing when w
16 matches
Mail list logo
