❦ 6 mars 2017 12:30 +1100, Brian May :
>> I'm hereby volunteering for such a sprint (if I hopefully make it to
>> Montreal). Hopefully, migrating from git-dpm to git-pq wont be as hard
>> as from SVN to Git.
>
> Great! The sooner (after the freeze) we can do this, the better
> IMHO. git-dpm
On 2017-03-06 10:15, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Mar 05, 2017, at 01:47 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>
>> Why waiting? The freeze is typically a time of very low activity and low
>> disturbance. That's a perfect moment for doing the switch.
>
> I think it's generally been the consensus, even outside o
On 2017-03-06 10:54, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> I'm hereby volunteering for such a sprint (if I hopefully make it to
> Montreal). Hopefully, migrating from git-dpm to git-pq wont be as hard
> as from SVN to Git.
Great! The sooner (after the freeze) we can do this, the better IMHO.
git-dpm looked goo
On March 5, 2017 5:09:33 PM EST, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>On 03/05/2017 01:13 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>> On March 4, 2017 6:41:13 PM EST, Thomas Goirand
>wrote:
>>> On 03/04/2017 06:03 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
If you don't understand why, after repeated warnings,
you were temporari
On 03/06/2017 12:15 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> There are lots of good reasons for that. I think most importantly is that if
> a last minute RC bug were to pop up, no one wants to have to figure out (or
> worse, debug) a new maintenance workflow in order to fix that critical
> problem.
If such thin
On Mar 05, 2017, at 01:47 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>Why waiting? The freeze is typically a time of very low activity and low
>disturbance. That's a perfect moment for doing the switch.
I think it's generally been the consensus, even outside of this team, that
doing vcs or other disruptive switch
On 03/05/2017 01:13 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On March 4, 2017 6:41:13 PM EST, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>> On 03/04/2017 06:03 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>>> If you don't understand why, after repeated warnings,
>>> you were temporarily banned from team repository access,
>>
>> I understand, but
On 03/05/2017 01:44 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On Sunday, March 05, 2017 01:26:19 AM Thomas Goirand wrote:
>> On 03/04/2017 04:04 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>>> This was not about isolated mistakes.
>>> [...]
>>> I do not, however, think it's useful to rehash the details.
>>
>> Though that's what
On 03/05/2017 06:09 PM, Allison Randal wrote:
> Well, that thread got exciting... I realize there's history here, folks,
> but for the good of Debian, please set that aside.
>
> On 03/04/2017 09:51 PM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>> On 03/04/2017 06:42 AM, Clint Byrum wrote:
>>>
>>> I care. Allison care
On March 5, 2017 2:57:10 PM EST, Ondrej Novy wrote:
>Hi,
>
>2017-03-05 18:09 GMT+01:00 Allison Randal :
>>
>> So, getting back to more practical matters, my proposal is that we
>start
>> by moving alembic and python-concurrent.futures back to DPMT, since
>they
>>
>
>as alembic and python-concurr
Hi,
2017-03-05 18:09 GMT+01:00 Allison Randal :
>
> So, getting back to more practical matters, my proposal is that we start
> by moving alembic and python-concurrent.futures back to DPMT, since they
>
as alembic and python-concurrent.futures co-maintainer I guess, I can say
something too :).
As
Well, that thread got exciting... I realize there's history here, folks,
but for the good of Debian, please set that aside.
On 03/04/2017 09:51 PM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 03/04/2017 06:42 AM, Clint Byrum wrote:
>>
>> I care. Allison cares. Barry cares. You care. DPMT cares too. What we
>> need
12 matches
Mail list logo
