* Charles Plessy [120426 02:08]:
> Thanks for the information, I thought it was obsoleted when the closing of
> bugs
> became versionned.
Before closing become versioned, the situation was more complex:
Before, a upload of a .changes would behave differently depending
whether it was a NMU or
Charles Plessy writes:
> I am still confused. Does the discussed paragraph mean that the whole
> NMU changelog entry has to be still present in the changelog, just under
> the latest entry, or that they have to be closed again in the latest
> entry ?
Either one will work for keeping the fixed v
Le Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 05:38:11PM -0700, Don Armstrong a écrit :
>
> Versioning is a directed acyclic graph. Each version has at most one
> ancestor, though it may have many descendants. When you upload a
> maintainer upload (MU) without including the NMU changelog entry, you
> are indicating tha
On Thu, 26 Apr 2012, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 04:19:50PM -0700, Don Armstrong a écrit :
> > Yes, that's still how the BTS works. Otherwise, the MU is a
> > descendant of the previous MU instead of the NMU. You can
> > alternatively just include the changelog entries from the
Le Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 04:19:50PM -0700, Don Armstrong a écrit :
> On Thu, 26 Apr 2012, gregor herrmann wrote:
> > On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 09:33:31 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> >
> > > Talking about improvements, if the following part about NMU
> > > acknowledgement is
> > > obsolete as I think, h
On Thu, 26 Apr 2012, gregor herrmann wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 09:33:31 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
>
> > Talking about improvements, if the following part about NMU acknowledgement
> > is
> > obsolete as I think, how about removing it, either as a separate bug, or as
> > part of the general
On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 09:33:31 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Talking about improvements, if the following part about NMU acknowledgement is
> obsolete as I think, how about removing it, either as a separate bug, or as
> part of the general refresh of the section that is discussed here.
>
> To ac
Le Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 02:01:48AM +0200, gregor herrmann a écrit :
> On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 12:34:00 -0400, Chris Knadle wrote:
>
> > For instance, say a potential maintainer picks up an old package to do an
> > NMU
> > on, and updates the version of debhelper from v5 to v8, switches from 1.0
> >
On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 12:34:00 -0400, Chris Knadle wrote:
> For instance, say a potential maintainer picks up an old package to do an NMU
> on, and updates the version of debhelper from v5 to v8, switches from 1.0
> format to 3.0 quilt format, and likewise has to make numerous other similar
> twe
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 2:22 PM, Chris Knadle wrote:
> I already proposed to write a bug report against the developers-refernece
> package in the email prior to the one you're replying to. [1]
>
> [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-policy/2012/04/msg00046.html
Then do it!
Best wishes,
Mike
--
Thanks for replying -- you had several informative points. [And thanks for
your work on the wine packages.] I just need to correct the following:
On Tuesday, April 24, 2012 14:01:10, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 12:45 PM, Chris Knadle wrote:
>> On Tuesday, April 24, 2012 03:
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 12:45 PM, Chris Knadle wrote:
>> > Try to read between the lines -- it implies "be reluctant to do an NMU
>> > unless you're absolutely sure of what you're doing". That's a much
>> > higher bar than the spirit that I think is embodied in Zack's email
>> > describing NMUs.
>
On Tue, 2012-04-24 at 00:54:41 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On 23/04/12 at 17:24 -0400, Chris Knadle wrote:
> > Section 5.11.1:
> >
> > - Seems to imply that the only reason to do an NMU is for fixing bugs. In
> > interpreting this, it is not clear that a wishlist bug report of "please
> > pa
On Tuesday, April 24, 2012 03:19:11, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
> On Tue, April 24, 2012 08:50, Chris Knadle wrote:
> >> > - States that leaving an open grave bug might be better than possibly
> >> > uploading a version that breaks something else
> >>
> >> that's correct
> >
> > Try to read between t
On Tuesday, April 24, 2012 03:46:59, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Adding zack to Cc.
Cool.
> Note that this discussion should really take place in a public place.
> Maybe in a bug report?
Huh... I was going to ask where to do that, but I just realized the existence
of the 'developers-refere
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 09:46:59AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> Note that this discussion should really take place in a public place.
It looks to me it's already in a public place. I for one am receiving this
through the debian-policy mailing list.
> Maybe in a bug report?
But that sounds lik
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 09:46:59AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> Note that this discussion should really take place in a public place.
> Maybe in a bug report?
Yes, definitely.
> I don't think that what the DPL stated in that thread is fundamentally
> different from what is described in dev-ref.
Hi,
Adding zack to Cc.
Note that this discussion should really take place in a public place.
Maybe in a bug report?
On 24/04/12 at 02:50 -0400, Chris Knadle wrote:
> On Monday, April 23, 2012 18:54:41, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > On 23/04/12 at 17:24 -0400, Chris Knadle wrote:
> > > Oops... sendin
On Tue, April 24, 2012 08:50, Chris Knadle wrote:
>> > - States that leaving an open grave bug might be better than possibly
>> > uploading a version that breaks something else
>>
>> that's correct
>
> Try to read between the lines -- it implies "be reluctant to do an NMU
> unless you're absolutely
On Monday, April 23, 2012 18:54:41, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On 23/04/12 at 17:24 -0400, Chris Knadle wrote:
> > Oops... sending again, as I forgot to CC: the developer's reference team.
> >
> > On Monday, April 23, 2012 16:26:59, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > On 23/04/12 at 14:56 -0
On 23/04/12 at 17:24 -0400, Chris Knadle wrote:
> Oops... sending again, as I forgot to CC: the developer's reference team.
>
> On Monday, April 23, 2012 16:26:59, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 23/04/12 at 14:56 -0400, Chris Knadle wrote:
> > > Greetings.
> > >
> > > I would like your
Oops... sending again, as I forgot to CC: the developer's reference team.
On Monday, April 23, 2012 16:26:59, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 23/04/12 at 14:56 -0400, Chris Knadle wrote:
> > Greetings.
> >
> > I would like your consideration as to whether to update Section 5.11.1 of
> > the D
Hi,
On 23/04/12 at 14:56 -0400, Chris Knadle wrote:
> Greetings.
>
> I would like your consideration as to whether to update Section 5.11.1 of the
> Developer's Reference to incorporate some of the views of Stefano Zacchiroli
> concerning "When and how to do an NMU". [1]
>
> For background as
Greetings.
I would like your consideration as to whether to update Section 5.11.1 of the
Developer's Reference to incorporate some of the views of Stefano Zacchiroli
concerning "When and how to do an NMU". [1]
For background as to why this came up, there's recently been discussion about
sever
24 matches
Mail list logo
