On 16197 March 1977, Paul Gevers wrote:
Albeit there is some progress, we think it better for the people
involved to now say that we will *not* release on July 31.
Unfortunately, that means that we have to start looking for a new date
again. Assuming what we'll learn in the upcoming week or t
On 16211 March 1977, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
FTP Masters, please sync the installer from sid to testing, as it
seems
to be Installed for all release architectures (9 total):
dak copy-installer 20210731
$ dak copy-installer 20210731
Will copy installer version 20210731 from suite unstable to
On 16824 March 1977, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
I realize that getting a sudo line on fasolo would mean increasing the
security risks quite a bunch for a limited gain. Since we already have
a mechanism to trigger changes in the archive via release team access,
that is /srv/release.debian.org/www/pro
On 16829 March 1977, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
I put SSH trigger into the room, instead of sudo. You supply the
version
on the ssh cmdline, and if that exists in unstable, a copy-installer
is
run with that version.
That looks very good to me, thanks!
Could even be extended to have source and tar
On 15562 March 1977, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
- November 9th
- November 16th
- November 23rd
All work for me.
--
bye, Joerg
On 15937 March 1977, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
In an attempt to be slightly more efficient than usual at planning a
point release... it's about a month since 10.6, so let's start looking
at dates for 10.7.
- November 21st
- November 28th
- December 5th
Right now they all look good for me.
--
On 14516 March 1977, Josh Triplett wrote:
> I've now written and submitted all of these patches.
Thanks!
Lets give it some time for them to get into packages and then we add
sections. Please ping again, so it doesnt get forgotten.
--
bye, Joerg
On 14518 March 1977, Josh Triplett wrote:
>> (my first thought was a canonical online location, but these tools may
>> not want that at runtime and can't rely on it at build time, but maybe
>> that should be the source used for the package)
> Packaging this data (section names, short descriptions,
On 14526 March 1977, Julien Cristau wrote:
> Jan 7th/8th
> Jan 14th/15th
Should work.
> Jan 21st/22nd
> Jan 28th/29th - Cambridge BSP, probably not ideal
> Feb 4th/5th - FOSDEM, probably not great either
> Feb 11th/12th
None of them for me.
--
bye, Joerg
On 14550 March 1977, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> FTPmasters, please sync the installer from sid to testing:
> dak copy-installer 20170112
dak copy-installer 20170112
Will copy installer version 20170112 from suite unstable to
testing.
Architectures to copy: i386, amd64, mipsel, ppc64el, mips, s39
On 14548 March 1977, Didier Raboud wrote:
> ftpmaster: please copy debian/tools/win32-loader/unstable into …/testing
Done
--
bye, Joerg
On 14307 March 1977, Julien Cristau wrote:
> with wheezy EOL, we should get a final point release out. In order to
> avoid version skew, it'd be good to have a jessie point release around
> the same time, so if that works for everyone let's do them both on the
> same Saturday again.
> June 4th/5t
On 14636 March 1977, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
[ ] dak@fasolo:~$ dak copy-installer 20170407
Will copy installer version 20170407 from suite unstable to
testing.
Architectures to copy: i386, amd64, mipsel, ppc64el, mips, s390x, armel, armhf,
powerpc, arm64, mips64el, hurd-i386
Architectures to skip
On 15286 March 1977, Jonathan Wiltshire wrote:
- Feb 9
- Feb 16
Can deal with both.
--
bye, Joerg
On 15287 March 1977, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
FTPmasters, please sync the installer from sid to testing:
dak copy-installer 20190118
[ ] dak@fasolo:~$ dak copy-installer 20190118
Will copy installer version 20190118 from suite unstable to
testing.
Architectures to copy: i386, amd64, mipsel, p
On 14714 March 1977, Jonathan Wiltshire wrote:
> A month or so from 9.0 bring us to about 15th July. How would any of these
> suit? Is 8.9 at the same time feasible?
> 8/9 July (probably a bit soon)
> 15/16 July
Both of them don't work for me.
> 22/23 July
That I could do.
--
bye, Joerg
On 15351 March 1977, Jonathan Wiltshire wrote:
- April 27
Wfm.
--
bye, Joerg
On 15369 March 1977, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
FTPmasters, please sync the installer from sid to testing:
dak copy-installer 20190410
[ master ] dak@fasolo:/srv/ftp.debian.org/web$ dak copy-installer 20190410
Will copy installer version 20190410 from suite unstable to
testing.
Architectures to
On 14944 March 1977, Julien Cristau wrote:
> we shipped 9.3 a couple of months ago, so we're overdue for 9.4.
> Can you please let us know your availability on the following:
> - March 3
> - March 10
Can do.
> - March 17
Not very good
> - March 24
> - March 31
No way.
--
bye, Joerg
On 15037 March 1977, Jonathan Wiltshire wrote:
> - 23rd Jun
Ok.
> - 7th July
No.
--
bye, Joerg
On 15037 March 1977, Jonathan Wiltshire wrote:
> - May 26th (meaning freeze this coming weekend, which might be a big
> ask)
No.
> - Jun 2nd (which may require an unusual SRM)
Possible.
> - Jun 9th (getting quite a way out of cadence, but maybe that can't be
>helped)
Possible.
--
bye
On 15077 March 1977, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
>> - July 7th
>> - July 14th
>> Are people available for either or both of those dates?
> The 7th is looking like the favourite so far (although would mean
> freezing next weekend), but we still need an ftp-master (N)ACK on
> either / both date.
No way f
On 14037 March 1977, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> We're somewhat overdue for both 8.2 and 7.9 now (in that order). Some
> potential September dates:
> 5/6th - okay for me
> 12/13th - the 12th doesn't work for me until at least mid-afternoon
> 19th/20th - looks okay
> 26th/27th - looks okay
All dates d
On 14179 March 1977, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> FTPmasters, please sync the installer from sid to testing:
> dak copy-installer 20160106
Done
--
bye, Joerg
[...]
While Debian is certainly about beer, and in some cases may even be
about free beer, Debian is mainly about free speech.
On 12059 March 1977, Michael Vogt wrote:
> the apt team plans to upload a new version of apt around 1. April that
> unfortunately breaks the ABI. To make this as painless as possible we
> would like to coordinate this with you so that we can schedule
> bin-NMUs. The ABI break is required for follo
>> One feature I asked for in my mail about the long descriptions was
>> having apt-ftparchive split the existing long descriptions out into a
>> seperate file. Is that implemented?
> apt-ftparchive doesn't split out currently, since apt 0.7.25 [1] however it
> is possible to set APT::FTPArchive::
>> So, I'm open for ideas how to improve the "workflow" and making it
>> easier for the release team and us (especially for me ;)
> We could add an option --verbose to cruft-report that actually runs the
> suggested commands with the --no-action option added (but only if the
> command is actually
>> And if one made sure no-action actually follows its name. :)
> I am not aware of any problems in 'dak rm --no-action'. What's wrong
> with it?
Oh, just saying. I know one tool, somewhere, didnt fully get what
no-action means.
--
bye, Joerg
<40293f1b.8130...@news.individual.de>
Windows ME? Mit
> I'd like to invite any Release and FTP team members who are attending
> DebConf to the Constantly Usable Testing BoF, Tuesday at 10:30 am.
Im not sure I can attend this using the stream, maybe, we will see.
But twerner is around in NYC, he might attend it.
> The purpose of the BoF is to finally
>> > Why not use a RC severity then? (not intending to push people, just
>> > to make it clear when checking the bugs list).
>> IIRC, the d-d-a mail asked to use normal severity. But maybe in this
>> case it is better to use RC severity now. The release team can still
>> adjust it as necessary.
>> Given that the feature was implemented on request for ftpmaster [0]
>> I at least hope they (still) use apt-ftparchive (at least for this)…
>> (and a quick grep over dak shows a few 'a-f generate' calls,
>> but yeah, thats guessing, as the feature implementation was
>> guesswork, but thats a d
Heyho
we just noticed that the dists/sid dir is getting unreasonably large,
its at 11gigabyte right now. Most of that due to a huge number of d-i
versions we have.
Can we decruft some of them? The more the better.
Below is a list of the current ones, please tell me which of them I
should leave a
>> In addition, several Zope applications, like Plone, require a specific
>> Zope version. Therefore, we also would like to be able to offer, at the
>> same time, several major versions of Zope (2.12 and 2.13 for example),
>> like we once did for Zope 2.9 and 2.10, and like we do for versio
On 12594 March 1977, Philipp Kern wrote:
>> so apparently September is a very bad month to get CDs done. I'm hereby
>> proposing the following with the hope that we can do it that way:
>> * Lenny: October 1st
>> * Squeeze: October 8th
>> Can we do that, pretty please? :)
>> Any objections?
>
Hello world,
I don't know if I really got everyone who should have a copy of this
mail in my CC list, so please forward it to wherever you think I am
missing. Thanks.
I just merged a patch from Ansgar to generate the Packages files without
the English description embedded inside them. Instead the
>> Please have a look at bug 506977 (of which the last and most explaining
>> comment is below this email). The issue involved is a copyright
>> infringement in the source of fpc before version 2.2.2 (i.e. everything
>> version except for the one in unstable). I fear that we should either
>> update
Hi
as the subject says, we are planning to increase the frequency of
dinstall[1] runs. Our current plan is to have 4 runs a day, switching
From the current [07|19]:52 schedule to the new [01|07|13|19]:52
schedule. All times are in UTC.
For the mirror network, this means two more pushes a day, but
>> as the subject says, we are planning to increase the frequency of
>> dinstall[1] runs. Our current plan is to have 4 runs a day, switching
>> From the current [07|19]:52 schedule to the new [01|07|13|19]:52
>> schedule. All times are in UTC.
> Would it be bad to suggest a move to 0/6/12/18 UTC
Hi
as announced a bit earlier[1], I just changed the frequency of our dinstall
run, and as such the frequency of the mirror pushes too.
We are now having 4 runs/pushes a day. The runs start at
[01|07|13|19]:52 (every 6 hours, starting at 1:52), the mirror push
follows approximately an hour later,
Hi,
lets define something sp DSA can reboot ries without first needing to
ask ftpmaster / release team if its a convenient time for us...
Ftpmaster has dinstall, which doesn't like to have a reboot right in
the middle. That starts at the known [1|7|13|19]:52 UTC. According to our
logs we have bet
On 11638 March 1977, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> Once britney moves to 4 runs/day, it'll start at 4/10/16/22 (it's 10/20
> at the moment). Britney, unfortunately, and until we get a better
> version running, has a very variable runtime. I don't know if what DSA
> asked for was "set-in-stone time slots"
> Here's a rough timeline:
> 1. Fix content -- due: 2009-02-06
> 2. Call for signatures and translations (d-d-a)
> 3. Finish collecting signatures -- due: 2009-02-11
> 4. Hand over files to ftp-masters
Do we want to have translations as well? Obviously it will not work out
to have them all toget
>> I tried rmadison, but that is/was broken:
>> $ rmadison dhcp3
>> Traceback (most recent call last):
>> File "/usr/local/bin/dak", line 248, in ?
>> main()
>> File "/usr/local/bin/dak", line 243, in main
>> module.main()
>> File "/srv/ftp.debian.org/dak/dak/ls.py", line 90, in main
On 11791 March 1977, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Is it possible to put back ttf-bitstream-vera in unstable, using the
> version in testing (which was the last uploaded one anyway)? Otherwise,
> I guess we just have to wait for a new upload.
Well, technically yes it is possible.
I would much prefer
On 11844 March 1977, Marc Brockschmidt wrote:
> Do you have any big changes planned? How much time would they take, and
> what consequences are there for the rest of the project?
Thanks for asking, but luckily the mirror team plans do not affect the
release or freeze time. We do have a lot of wor
On 11236 March 1977, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 09:48:48AM +0100, Enrico Zini wrote:
>> So, as maintainer of C++ packages that use apt and are involved in apt
>> transitions every so often, I would like to have some sort of handy way
>> to know "you're free to upload to sid" o
>On 11255 March 1977, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
>> On Sat, Jan 05, 2008 at 11:30:41AM +, Luk Claes wrote:
>> Please open bugs against ftp.debian.org requesting its removal from
>> stable and oldstable, TIA.
> #459296
With the current title you request removal from unstable, please fix.
--
bye
On 11261 March 1977, Margarita Manterola wrote:
> Implement a new file, that works similarly to the hints file, but that
> causes uploads to unstable for selected packages to be rejected. Thus,
> if a maintainer uploads, it won't get through so that it won't get in
> the way of the transition.
>
Hi
as discussed in [1] the transition feature is now available and usable.
Basically it is centered around a Yaml file in which you define the
transitions.
First: This whole thing is *NOT* meant to set policy on any upload other
than needed for a release transition! No matter how much a possible
On 11359 March 1977, Andreas Barth wrote:
> So, what I would propose would be to either allow the release user to
> run dak control-suite -s testing, and/or to allow some people (including
> the release user) to change bin_associations and src_associations as far
> as it concerns testing. With tha
reassign 484009 release.debian.org
thanks
On 11403 March 1977, Daniel R. wrote:
> Package: ftp.debian.org
Wrong location, we have nothing to do with (what is in) testing.
Reassigning.
> This weekend (1-June-2008) several important gnome metapackages have been
> removed from Debian Lenny reposito
On 11404 March 1977, Mike Bird wrote:
>> > Artificially lowering the RC count in Testing is not always
>> > preferential to keeping Testing in a state amenable to testing.
>> You say yourself that it's not artificially as RC bugs in "new" packages
>> don't get that easily in testing anymore...
> R
reassign 489298 release.debian.org
thanks
On 11436 March 1977, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> Hi, the following links (as given on
> http://www.debian.org/devel/testing) are dead:
> http://ftp-master.debian.org/testing/testing_probs.htmlhttp://ftp-master.debian.org/testing/unstable_probs.html
> http:/
On 11444 March 1977, Jonas Meurer wrote:
> At least one lenny release manager mentioned that he doesn't object
> against the change and that it's not to late for lenny either yet
> [7],[8].
Those two links clearly say "Its better to not have force involved" and
let the maintainers agree on it. Wh
On 11445 March 1977, Marc Haber wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 12:56:11AM +0200, Jonas Meurer wrote:
>> On 12/07/2008 Joerg Jaspert wrote:
>> > Those two links clearly say "Its better to not have force involved" and
>> > let the maintainers agree on it. Wh
Heya World,
I just did the requested switch, sysklogd/klogd are now priority extra,
rsyslog (not its -mysql -pgsql packages) are now priority important.
If something else, like Tasks or so, needs to be changed too: Whoever
needs to do that please do it. Thanks.
--
bye, Joerg
[ New Maintainer Pr
* Change libmysqlclient-dev to libmysqlclient12-dev
* muddleftpd: implicitly declared function returns a pointer that is
used (Closes: #226529)
-- Joerg Jaspert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Mon, 9 May 2005 21:54:24 +0200
muddleftpd (1.3.13.1-3) unstable; urgency=low
* Bug fix: "
loses: #302482).
* dak: French debconf templates translation
* Bug fix: "[l10n] Czech translation for dak", thanks to Martin ¦ín
(Closes: #308041).
* Step back to a jennifer which actually runs on Debian hosts too, thus
removing removing a small function to check debs a bit mor
On 10297 March 1977, Frans Pop wrote:
> If it is certain that non-US is empty on release date, lets make the text
> a bit stronger:
> non-US obsoleted
> For the &releasename; release, all packages that were formerly in the
> non-US part of the archive have been moved into the regular archive.
>
On 10311 March 1977, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> Cc to debian-release, to pledge that the release managers include
> version 1.2005.04.23 of discover1-data in Sarge.
Sarge is closed, so you are out of luck.
> -- Joshua Kwan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sat, 23 Apr 2005 20:36:07 -0700
That old, and no
On 10315 March 1977, Thomas Bushnell wrote:
>> Rationale:
>> Well, the contents of both are decisions of the maintainer. It is IMHO
>> very bad if a package starts to change build dependencies during a NMU
>> or an security upload, and even worse if the maintainer is "adjusted" in
>> the binary pa
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> ==> remove kernel-image-3.4.18-i386bf
> Boot-floppies image, useless in sarge
3.4->2.4? :)
--
bye Joerg
[..] trying to avoid extra dependencies on gnumeric is like trying to
plug one hole in the titantic with a bit of tissue paper"
pgpkmY
On 10461 March 1977, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> Also see http://ftp-master.debian.org/~joerg/dinstall.html (altough
> this doesn't seem to work at the moment; BCCing Joerg).
Its 11:52 at US/Pacific and s/ftp-master/people/
--
bye Joerg
one imagines he'll be campaigning with a grass-roots "free
On 10473 March 1977, Adam C. Powell, IV wrote:
> * On Sunday 11/6, Joerg Jaspert marked my upload "rejected for
> now", citing number of packages and naming convention as a
> reason.
> * I gave the reason for my naming convention and number
On 10513 March 1977, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I believe backports.org now uses the same upload mechanism as Debian
> proper, and therefore your sponsor would be able to upload packages
> there as well (but you'll want to read the documentation first, since
> there are version numbering conventions, e
On 13118 March 1977, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> We're somewhat overdue with the next Squeeze point release (6.0.7) and
> it'd be good to get it done before the wheezy release, so that we can
> pull in some upgrade fixes. As an opening gambit, some proposed dates,
> all of which appear to currently w
On 14611 March 1977, Julien Cristau wrote:
> * April 8-9
No
> * April 15-16
Possible
> * April 22-23
Ok
> * April 29-30
Ok
> * May 6-7
No.
--
bye, Joerg
On 12962 March 1977, Philipp Kern wrote:
> I'd like to arrange a point release to be done as soon as feasible.
> So I'd like to propose a bunch of weekends here:
> * Sep 22/23: I'm personally busy on the 23th
Right after the ftpmaster meeting. Might work.
> * Sep 29/30: ok from RT side
Works fo
On 12331 March 1977, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
>> Package: lintian
>> Severity: wishlist
> [...]
>> To get a list of affected binary packages:
>>
>> w3m
>> http://lintian.debian.org/tags/install-info-used-in-maintainer-script.html |
>> awk '/[(]binary[)]$/ {print $1}'
> [...]
>> Could lintian ma
On 10794 March 1977, Richard B. Kreckel wrote:
>> libginac1.3c2a-dbg_1.3.5-1_i386.deb: package says priority is
>> optional, override says extra.
> Last time I uploaded that package (then
> libginac1.3c2a-dbg_1.3.4-1_i386.deb) it was optional. (I've just checked
> the old upload file.) Did it real
On 10880 March 1977, Gürkan Sengün wrote:
>> Do you REALLY think this is a valid candidate to be unblock? I don't
>> think so.
> Yes I REALLY REALLY think so. WOULD I ELSE ASK FOR IT? oh well do whatever
> you want.
So what RC bugs does it fix? None? Why are you asking? You know, its
freeze time.
On 12693 March 1977, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> From the experience of etch's EOL point release, we'll need a little
> time to sort out any remaining build issues for security packages after
> the end of support. The earliest we'd therefore be looking at would be
> the weekend of 11/12th February.
On 12693 March 1977, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
>> Does sound fine to me, but do you really want only one week between the
>> end of security and the final point release? Its not much time, should
>> security really push out something that ends up plenty broken... How
>> high THAT possibility is i don
>> > As an opening gambit, I'd propose we look at one of the following
>> > Saturdays in January: 14th, 21st, 28th.
>> 21st and 28th (with the respective day after the actual release day, to
>> do the live images) are fine for me.
> The 28th would be preferable for me. Would that still work for e
On 12749 March 1977, Andreas Tille wrote:
> Could somebody from the release team please give a statement whether
> there is any chance to inject description_md5 fields into the packages
> files from Squeeze (and Wheezy).
Learn to read: In the last mails, cited many times, my sql query, the result.
On 12750 March 1977, Andreas Tille wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 07, 2012 at 10:29:50PM +, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
>> On Tue, 2012-02-07 at 23:26 +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
>> > On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 22:59:25 +0100, Andreas Tille wrote:
> Regarding squeeze: Could somebody give some reasons for refu
On 12824 March 1977, Niels Thykier wrote:
> [3]
> http://raphaelhertzog.com/2012/04/19/people-behind-debian-samuel-thibault-working-on-accessibility-and-the-hurd/
>
> """
> The Debian GNU/Hurd port can almost completely be installed from the
> official mirrors, using the standard Debian Installer.
Hi
a recent thread on the -dak list pointed me back to a topic that I want
to have fixed for some time now, which is the location of the installer
stuff... (Actually quite some more, but the important part for the
boot/release list is this).
I don't think the installer images should be in dists/
On 12851 March 1977, Joey Hess wrote:
>> I don't think the installer images should be in dists/ as they are now,
>> but get their own location, installer/. For various reasons, including
>> the - wth was it added there in the first place, - currently an
>> installer update move from one suite to a
On 12853 March 1977, Joey Hess wrote:
> Joerg Jaspert wrote:
>> I understand it right that doing it this way (ie. current symlink stays
>> around), it won't break anything, so we can "just do it for all suites"?!
> It appears that debmirror will be broken, if it
>> I also take it we don't need/want the main/contrib/non-free in
>> installer/, as our d-i will always be main/ only.
> What about firmware stuff?
Thats not a new thing - and still we dont have any such image in Debian.
Does firmware stuff itself need a whole image? Is anyone working on it
(to b
with firmware udebs from
> non-free included. debian should provide this on the archive level too
> (read: non-free udeb Packages/Sources indicies), regardless if the
> official debian images are using it yet or ever.
On 12854 March 1977, Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Montag, 21. Mai 2012, J
On 12861 March 1977, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>>There's a related question, which I just realised wasn't actually
>>explicit - does it make sense to add an architecture to testing at this
>>stage of the process which we don't think is releasable? My memory of
>>previous discussions is that the gener
On 13926 March 1977, Bálint Réczey wrote:
> 2015-04-29 15:38 GMT+02:00 Emilio Pozuelo Monfort :
>> On 29/04/15 14:29, Bálint Réczey wrote:
>>> The last word from the Security Team was Moritz's email which gave
>>> ffmpeg green light after Jessie's release.
>> No. He said that a decision between lib
On 13927 March 1977, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> We're also a little overdue for 7.9 as Jessie work took precedence; 7.9
> really wants to take place after 8.1, as we have some packages for which
> pu > opu > stable.
> May 23/24
Works
> May 30/31
Works
> June 6/7
Works.
> June 13/14
Nope.
>
On 13947 March 1977, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
>> > As seems to have become the norm, now that Jessie's out it's time to
>> > start planning for the first point release.
>> > We're also a little overdue for 7.9 as Jessie work took precedence; 7.9
>> > really wants to take place after 8.1, as we have s
On 13951 March 1977, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
>> > Based on received responses and the current date, I'm proposing June 6th
>> > for 8.1 (and then looking at other dates for 7.9). Does that still work
>> > for people?
>> Sounds ok to me. Start at 10 UTC or earlier/later?
> I was assuming either 8ish
Hi
From our FTPMaster meeting 2011 minutes[1]:
--88---
- In a discussion with the Debian Hurd porters it was decided that the
Hurd port stays on FTPMaster until Wheezy is released. Should they
have managed to get the port into a state
>> with all the others (probably as a technology preview)...
>> So, release people: How likely is it that Hurd gets added to jessie?
> If added as a 'technology preview', what does that mean exactly?
Note that the tech preview was a softening of a requirement to get added
to wheezy. Which didn
On 13209 March 1977, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> Based on some informal queries a little while ago, the weekend of 15/16
> June looks like a good date for the first wheezy point release. Would
> that work for everyone?
I'll be away then, with a TZ=UTC+8 and not very good net connection.
So I'm basic
Am 19.08.2013 15:55, schrieb Julien Cristau:
we should start thinking about dates for the 7.2 and 6.0.8 point
releases. Which week-ends in the coming months would work for
ftpmaster, press and cd? (We'd need one date for stable and another
later for oldstable.)
We COULD do both at once, at l
On 13397 March 1977, Jonathan Wiltshire wrote:
> According to the normal schedule, the point release for 7.3 is due
> somewhere around 12th December.
> How does everybody look for the weekends of:
> 14th/5th
Works
> 21st/22nd
Should work.
> 28th/29th December?
Does not work.
--
bye, Joerg
S
>> According to the normal schedule, the point release for 7.3 is due
>> somewhere around 12th December.
>> How does everybody look for the weekends of:
>> 14th/5th
>> 21st/22nd
>> 28th/29th December?
> Based on the responses so far, if we want to be sure to have an
> ftpmaster, SRM and CD-master
93 matches
Mail list logo
