Re: Branches post-wheezy

2013-05-01 Thread Joerg Jaspert
>> Your decision. However, as backports is now the same dak instance as the >> main archive, -master should be able to find a way to make this without >> the overhead. > You mean, simply copying the testing packages into backports if their > dependencies are met within stable+backports? That woul

Re: Branches post-wheezy

2013-04-30 Thread Ben Hutchings
On Tue, 2013-04-30 at 10:09 +0200, Bastian Blank wrote: > On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 02:03:42AM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > There can be no more uploads to unstable for wheezy, so I propose to > > rename sid -> wheezy for each package that currently has a sid branch. > > Okay. > > > Linux 3.9 is

Re: Branches post-wheezy

2013-04-30 Thread Rtp
Bastian Blank writes: > On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 02:03:42AM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: >> There can be no more uploads to unstable for wheezy, so I propose to >> rename sid -> wheezy for each package that currently has a sid branch. > > Okay. > >> Linux 3.9 is now out, so we have a choice between

Re: Branches post-wheezy

2013-04-30 Thread Bastian Blank
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 02:03:42AM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: > There can be no more uploads to unstable for wheezy, so I propose to > rename sid -> wheezy for each package that currently has a sid branch. Okay. > Linux 3.9 is now out, so we have a choice between 3.8.10 and 3.9 as the > first up

Branches post-wheezy

2013-04-29 Thread Ben Hutchings
There can be no more uploads to unstable for wheezy, so I propose to rename sid -> wheezy for each package that currently has a sid branch. If you have any pending fixes for wheezy in a working copy, you'd better commit them now or take a diff for later application. Linux 3.9 is now out, so we hav