Simon McVittie writes:
> Here's a maybe-stupid idea: use http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep14/ branch
> naming (debian/master, debian/experimental) for that branch, and switch to
> it as the default branch (edit foo.git/HEAD on alioth) when unfreezing
> and "officially" switching to gbp-pq?
One thin
On Wed, 08 Mar 2017 at 17:47:40 +1100, Brian May wrote:
> At the moment - since there were no objections yet - I have revised the
> wiki documentation (link already provided) to include DEP-14 and
> debian/master (as per DEP-14).
I think there's value in using debian/master for the focus of develo
Thomas Goirand writes:
>> Why debian/unstable, and not debian/sid?
>
> Because "unstable" is what we write in debian/changelog, so that's
> consistent, and also consistent if we upload to experimental. But I'm
> fine either ways anyway, if others would like to use debian/sid because
> it's faster
On 03/06/2017 11:18 PM, Brian May wrote:
> On 2017-03-07 08:43, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>
>> I prefer if we use debian/unstable rather than debian/master though, so
>> it is more explicit where we upload that branch.
>
> My reading of DEP-14 is that is says we should use debian/master.
>
> Not t
On 2017-03-07 08:43, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> I prefer if we use debian/unstable rather than debian/master though, so
> it is more explicit where we upload that branch.
My reading of DEP-14 is that is says we should use debian/master.
Not that I care much myself, either is fine with me.
Why de
On 03/06/2017 09:25 PM, Brian May wrote:
> Scott Kitterman writes:
>
>> Personally, I don't know enough to have an opinion. I'm interested in the
>> views of DPMT members with gbp pq experience. What's the consensus about
>> branch naming (all I know is for git-dpm, it was pretty hard wired)?
Scott Kitterman writes:
> Personally, I don't know enough to have an opinion. I'm interested in the
> views of DPMT members with gbp pq experience. What's the consensus about
> branch naming (all I know is for git-dpm, it was pretty hard wired)?
I tend to think that branching will easier wit
Updated the subject, since we've drifted...
On Monday, March 06, 2017 04:47:39 PM Simon McVittie wrote:
> On Mon, 06 Mar 2017 at 10:32:17 -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > I think it's reasonable to try this out on a branch
>
> Here's a maybe-stupid idea: use http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep14/ bra
On Mon, 06 Mar 2017 at 10:32:17 -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> I think it's reasonable to try this out on a branch
Here's a maybe-stupid idea: use http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep14/ branch
naming (debian/master, debian/experimental) for that branch, and switch to
it as the default branch (edit foo
On Mar 06, 2017, at 10:32 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>I think it's reasonable to try this out on a branch for some number of
>packages and write documentation (the documentation for using git with
>git-dpm in DPMT is excellent and I don't think we should regress in that
>area). Once that's done,
On Monday, March 06, 2017 07:04:41 AM Clint Byrum wrote:
> Excerpts from Brian May's message of 2017-03-06 12:30:56 +1100:
> > The concept to convert from git-dpm to gbp pq is very very easy:
> >
> > 1. Delete debian/.git-dpm
> > 2. Unapply all patches.
> > 3. Commit and push.
> >
> > (repeat for
Excerpts from Brian May's message of 2017-03-06 12:30:56 +1100:
> The concept to convert from git-dpm to gbp pq is very very easy:
>
> 1. Delete debian/.git-dpm
> 2. Unapply all patches.
> 3. Commit and push.
>
> (repeat for all branches on all repositories)
>
> Step 2 is easier said then d
Vincent Bernat writes:
> I think you mean git-dpm.
Whoops. Yes, of course.
--
Brian May
❦ 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
On March 5, 2017 12:33:03 AM EST, Vincent Bernat wrote:
> ❦ 4 mars 2017 23:04 GMT, Scott Kitterman :
>
>>> > This was not about isolated mistakes. We've all made those. I do
>>> > not, however, think it's useful to rehash the details. I do think
>it
>>> > is worth mentioning that since he's
❦ 4 mars 2017 23:04 GMT, Scott Kitterman :
>> > This was not about isolated mistakes. We've all made those. I do
>> > not, however, think it's useful to rehash the details. I do think it
>> > is worth mentioning that since he's back in the team it wasn't without
>> > limit.
>>
>> He's back
On 03/04/2017 06:42 AM, Clint Byrum wrote:
> That's for _OpenStack_. We're talking about libraries here. Nobody is
> suggesting that DPMT take on Keystone or Horizon.
>
>> Alembic is one piece of the puzzle that may be a source of trouble in
>> OpenStack. Having a package inside the umbrella of th
On 03/04/2017 05:13 AM, Brian May wrote:
> Thomas Goirand writes:
>
>> And I'm not even addressing yet the horrible git-dpm troubles, how
>> many more years the team is forcibly burying every contributor into.
>
> There is discussion on changing this. The consensus seems to be we
> should wait u
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 you're doing.
>
> You don't have a reason to do s
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 you're doing.
You don't have a reason to do so, while I do (ie: explain why I would
prefer if packages were not moved to
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 I don't agree. My view is that it went a way too far
>
On Saturday, March 04, 2017 09:23:28 PM Vincent Bernat wrote:
> ❦ 4 mars 2017 15:04 GMT, Scott Kitterman :
> > This was not about isolated mistakes. We've all made those. I do
> > not, however, think it's useful to rehash the details. I do think it
> > is worth mentioning that since he's back
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 I don't agree. My view is that it went a way too far
and that we all have better things to do than such playground ac
❦ 4 mars 2017 15:04 GMT, Scott Kitterman :
> This was not about isolated mistakes. We've all made those. I do
> not, however, think it's useful to rehash the details. I do think it
> is worth mentioning that since he's back in the team it wasn't without
> limit.
He's back in the team becaus
On March 4, 2017 4:46:05 AM EST, Vincent Bernat wrote:
> ❦ 3 mars 2017 21:42 -0800, Clint Byrum :
>
>> One great thing about teams is they have many faces. Talk to me. Talk
>to
>> Allison. Talk to others. We're here to make sure things flow smoothly
>> for OpenStack and Debian, and if you have
❦ 3 mars 2017 21:42 -0800, Clint Byrum :
> One great thing about teams is they have many faces. Talk to me. Talk to
> Allison. Talk to others. We're here to make sure things flow smoothly
> for OpenStack and Debian, and if you have disagreements and don't want
> to fight, I get that. Maybe we c
Excerpts from Thomas Goirand's message of 2017-03-04 04:37:16 +0100:
> On 03/03/2017 04:09 PM, Allison Randal wrote:
> > On 03/03/2017 08:01 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> >> Could you please put this on hold? It's possible that I resume my work
> >> on OpenStack packages (though I can't disclose anyt
On March 3, 2017 10:37:16 PM EST, Thomas Goirand wrote:
...
>4/ Finally, I feel very much unwelcome by the team "leaders" of the
>DPMT
>(of which the "main" person happen to also be that SQLA maintainer
>which
>I prefer not to name). I already have, and will continue to avoid -as
>much as possib
Thomas Goirand writes:
> And I'm not even addressing yet the horrible git-dpm troubles, how
> many more years the team is forcibly burying every contributor into.
There is discussion on changing this. The consensus seems to be we
should wait until after the next release however.
> Plus Alioth i
On 03/03/2017 04:09 PM, Allison Randal wrote:
> On 03/03/2017 08:01 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>> Could you please put this on hold? It's possible that I resume my work
>> on OpenStack packages (though I can't disclose anything on this yet).
>
> Hi Thomas,
>
> I appreciate your preferences, I real
On 03/03/2017 08:01 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> Could you please put this on hold? It's possible that I resume my work
> on OpenStack packages (though I can't disclose anything on this yet).
Hi Thomas,
I appreciate your preferences, I really do. But the past few months have
been a pretty harsh re
On 02/28/2017 09:46 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> We've talked on various lists about adopting the OpenStack packages into DPMT,
> and also adopting the team's standard workflows and helpers.
>
> The way the packages have been maintained in the past isn't aligned with our
> team practices, but Allison
43 matches
Mail list logo
