Hello,
i would like to propose a project to make sure our teams (DPMT/PAPT)
repos are being used correctly; it has a broader set of requirements
than the pristine-tar one (and so it's more complex), thus a separate
message.
The checks i have in mind for now, are:
* packages in DPMT/PAPT need to h
On 31.05.2017 20:58, Stefano Rivera wrote:
> It's been a while, but I found some time and energy at PyCon, to work
> our SVN->Git migration.
>
> I started with our DPMT migration script, pulled out the git-dpm bits,
> and fixed the obvious issues I saw.
>
> Here's what the migration currently loo
On 2017-05-31 11:58:15, Stefano Rivera wrote:
> It's been a while, but I found some time and energy at PyCon, to work
> our SVN->Git migration.
>
> I started with our DPMT migration script, pulled out the git-dpm bits,
> and fixed the obvious issues I saw.
>
> Here's what the migration currently
On Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 04:23:20PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, 01 Jun 2017, Brian May wrote:
> > On 2017-06-01 07:32, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> >
> > > Let's assume not (which is fine with me; i.e. why adopt git-dpm for PAPT
> > > when
> > > we know we just want to get rid of it
Hi,
On Thu, 01 Jun 2017, Brian May wrote:
> On 2017-06-01 07:32, Barry Warsaw wrote:
>
> > Let's assume not (which is fine with me; i.e. why adopt git-dpm for PAPT
> > when
> > we know we just want to get rid of it later?). Then i tried to import a new
> > upstream as described here https://wik
On Thu, 01 Jun 2017 at 15:06:07 +1000, Brian May wrote:
> So to me it looks like the required changes are:
>
> * Rename Author field to From. Ensure it is first field.
It doesn't *have* to be the first, but if it isn't, gbp pq export will
re-order it.
> * Add Date field. Set to what?
The date
On 2017-06-01 09:16, Simon McVittie wrote:
> but this style (which is a DEP3 invention, and not used outside Debian and its
> derivatives) is not:
>
> Author: ...
> Description: First line of description
> More description
> more description
> yet more description
> Bug-Debian: ...
Might be good
On 2017-06-01 09:16, Simon McVittie wrote:
> From: ...
> Date: ...
> Subject: First line of description
>
> More description
> more description
> yet more description
>
> Bug-Debian: ...
> Applied-upstream: ...
> More-DEP3-fields-in-pseudo-header: ...
> ---
> optional diffstat here
>
> diff --g
Hi Scott (2017.06.01_05:01:00_+0200)
> As long as we have one team solution for this that is documented I
> don't care what it is as long as it works. I don't think we should
> have two approaches. Let's pick one and use it. Team members should
> not be surprised when they look at a team git repo
On May 31, 2017 7:16:39 PM EDT, Simon McVittie wrote:
>On Thu, 01 Jun 2017 at 00:16:45 +0200, Stefano Rivera wrote:
>> Hi Barry (2017.05.31_23:32:20_+0200)
>> > $ gbp pq export
>> > - This doesn't work until you at least do a first pq import, but
>now I see the
>> > d/p/changlog-docs patch get
On 2017-06-01 07:32, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> Let's assume not (which is fine with me; i.e. why adopt git-dpm for PAPT when
> we know we just want to get rid of it later?). Then i tried to import a new
> upstream as described here https://wiki.debian.org/Python/GitPackagingPQ
Another problem I have
On Thu, 01 Jun 2017 at 00:16:45 +0200, Stefano Rivera wrote:
> Hi Barry (2017.05.31_23:32:20_+0200)
> > $ gbp pq export
> > - This doesn't work until you at least do a first pq import, but now I see
> > the
> > d/p/changlog-docs patch gets changed in ways that lose information:
>
> Sounds like
On Thu, Jun 01, 2017 at 12:16:45AM +0200, Stefano Rivera wrote:
> > $ gbp pq export
> > - This doesn't work until you at least do a first pq import, but now I see
> > the
> > d/p/changlog-docs patch gets changed in ways that lose information:
>
> Sounds like a limitation of pq import. I'm supri
Hi W. (2017.05.31_22:54:10_+0200)
> > * trac-batchmodify: OK
> > * trac-git: missing a tag [DONE]
>
> Those two are only in oldstable.
> Not sure whether it is worth to migrate them at all.
Yeah, let's ditch them entirely. I picked up on some deleted packages
during my review, when the history wa
Hi Barry (2017.05.31_23:32:20_+0200)
> I did a spot check on twine. I don't see a debian/.git-dpm file on master so
> git-dpm won't work. Is it supposed to?
> Let's assume not (which is fine with me; i.e. why adopt git-dpm for PAPT when
> we know we just want to get rid of it later?).
Yep, no gi
On May 31, 2017, at 08:58 PM, Stefano Rivera wrote:
>It's been a while, but I found some time and energy at PyCon, to work
>our SVN->Git migration.
Thanks for all your great work on this Stefano!
>Here's what the migration currently looks like [0].
>[0]: https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/users/ste
Many thanks, Stefano, for your work on this!
On 2017-05-31 20:58, Stefano Rivera wrote:
> * trac-batchmodify: OK
> * trac-git: missing a tag [DONE]
Those two are only in oldstable.
Not sure whether it is worth to migrate them at all.
> * trac-privateticketsplugin: missing some tags [DONE]
This
It's been a while, but I found some time and energy at PyCon, to work
our SVN->Git migration.
I started with our DPMT migration script, pulled out the git-dpm bits,
and fixed the obvious issues I saw.
Here's what the migration currently looks like [0].
[0]: https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/users/
On Aug 10, 2016, at 08:49 PM, Brian May wrote:
>Most of the time it works pretty well... It looked good compared with
>the alternatives available at the time we made the decision.
>
>However this is irrelevant IMHO if it isn't being mantained.
Yep. git-dpm was the best of breed at the time we we
Thomas Goirand writes:
> git-dpm also fails to tag upstream/foo automatically when importing a
> new version. I've been told to use "git-dpm tag", but that's not
> obvious. My own experience managing debian/patches quilt patches
> manually or through gbp pq is actually much much nicer.
The probl
On 2016-08-10 10:18, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> Instead of
> accepting the merge, and resolving conflicts later on, git-dpm goes into
> the rebase conflict mode of Git, and it's often not obvious what to do
> there. Messing-up everything, and restart from scratch (and then iterate
> until done properl
On 08/10/2016 09:21 AM, Sandro Tosi wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 11:50 PM, W. Martin Borgert wrote:
>> On 2016-08-09 23:28, Daniel Stender wrote:
>>> On this occasion ... let it be me to start the discussion: let's get into
>>> Git
>>> also for Python Apps soon.
>>
>> A common VCS for both DPM
[Sandro Tosi, 2016-08-10]
> should we try and use plain git-buildpackage instead of git-dpm?
the plan is to test something else (git-pq), yes
(and maybe even later replace git-dpm with it in DPMT if it proves to be better)
--
Piotr Ożarowski Debian GNU/Linux Developer
www
On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 11:50 PM, W. Martin Borgert wrote:
> On 2016-08-09 23:28, Daniel Stender wrote:
>> On this occasion ... let it be me to start the discussion: let's get into Git
>> also for Python Apps soon.
>
> A common VCS for both DPMT and PAPT would be nice, indeed.
should we try and us
On 2016-08-09 23:28, Daniel Stender wrote:
> On this occasion ... let it be me to start the discussion: let's get into Git
> also for Python Apps soon.
A common VCS for both DPMT and PAPT would be nice, indeed.
(I have been reminded rightfully by both Piotr and Sandro, that
PAPT still uses SVN. C
Dear Team,
Git-multimail is a post-recieve hook script for git implemented in
python 2, and distributed in git/contrib on git.kernel.org
I'd like to see git-multimail in debian. There are currently no RFP/ITP
( but there is a wishlist bug against git
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?
26 matches
Mail list logo
