On Thu, 18 May 2006, martin f krafft wrote:
> Also, what you are saying leads me to believe that you would want me
> to document *all* important changes, whether respective Debian bugs
> existed or not. NEWS.Debian is clearly a better method for such
Many important changes do not modify the intend
martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> also sprach Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.05.17.2210
> -0500]:
>> mdadm is a *critical* part of a system that uses linux software
>> raid. Anything that helps users understand all the important
>> changes an update will imply is
I'll add the explanation; it should take less time than restarting
the flame war or dealing with the consequences.
Sorry, and thanks to Don Armstrong for a patient and convincing
explanation.
--
Please do not send copies of list mail to me; I read the list!
.''`. martin f. krafft <[EMAIL
also sprach Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.05.17.2210
-0500]:
> mdadm is a *critical* part of a system that uses linux software
> raid. Anything that helps users understand all the important
> changes an update will imply is always uselful.
Of course, but if there weren't
martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> also sprach Simon Huggins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.05.17.1029 -0500]:
>> I know this isn't the sort of feedback you want but these aren't
>> all "please ship the new version of mdadm" bugs and whilst they
>> might well be fixed by this version I though
On Wed, May 17, 2006 at 09:55:54PM -0500, martin f krafft wrote:
> I just don't think there's a big point in duplicating information in
> the Debian changelog.
I see debian work as tailoring upstream one so that it best fits our
users. Selecting the appropriate information from the upstream change
On Wed, 17 May 2006, martin f krafft wrote:
> Mh. I don't want to (re)start a flamewar, but my take is that
> changelog.Debian documents changes I've made, and the upstream
> changelog documents the changes they've made. I acknowledge these
> changes by closing the bugs, and if you care how it got
also sprach Simon Huggins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.05.17.1029 -0500]:
> I know this isn't the sort of feedback you want but these aren't
> all "please ship the new version of mdadm" bugs and whilst they
> might well be fixed by this version I thought consensus was to try
> to describe what it was
On Wed, May 17, 2006 at 01:11:43AM -0500, martin f krafft wrote:
> Here's the changelog:
> mdadm (2.4.1-1) experimental; urgency=low
>* The "I'll kill that maintainer... uh, wait, it's me" release. Sorry for
> the delay, here's the long awaited new upstream release,
> which closes:
Hi all,
I have finished mdadm 2.4.1-1 and would like some people to look at
it before I upload it, since I made some significant changes (no
more mdrun, for instance (but it's not yet deprecated until
initramfs-tools syncs)).
Here's the changelog:
mdadm (2.4.1-1) experimental; urgency=low
10 matches
Mail list logo
