Re: Accepted faad2 2.7-5 (source amd64)

2010-11-22 Thread Andres Mejia
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 4:34 AM, Fabian Greffrath wrote: > Am 22.11.2010 10:18, schrieb Jonas Smedegaard: >> >> This is bad: t-p-u does not get the same exposure and automated >> testing time before sliding into testing. This means a higher burden >> on the Release team for such uploads, and likel

Re: Accepted faad2 2.7-5 (source amd64)

2010-11-22 Thread Fabian Greffrath
Am 22.11.2010 10:18, schrieb Jonas Smedegaard: This is bad: t-p-u does not get the same exposure and automated testing time before sliding into testing. This means a higher burden on the Release team for such uploads, and likely less interest in acceptance due to the weaker testing process! But

Re: Accepted faad2 2.7-5 (source amd64)

2010-11-22 Thread Jonas Smedegaard
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 09:48:52AM +0100, Alessio Treglia wrote: On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 9:47 AM, Fabian Greffrath wrote: Am 20.11.2010 12:37, schrieb Alessio Treglia: Oh god, I made a mistake. I get a lot of confusion while trying to re-upload the package, maybe I've switched to the wrong gi

Re: Accepted faad2 2.7-5 (source amd64)

2010-11-22 Thread Alessio Treglia
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 9:51 AM, Fabian Greffrath wrote: > Am 22.11.2010 09:48, schrieb Alessio Treglia: >> >> Yes, it is: I ap > > Sorry? I ap...ologize :) >> As alternative, we could upload a 2.7-4+squeeze1 release to t-p-u, >> what do you think? > > Yes, even better. This would save us anothe

Re: Accepted faad2 2.7-5 (source amd64)

2010-11-22 Thread Alessio Treglia
Jonas, first of all, thanks for helping me out here. On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 5:03 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > If uncertain if some release is sane, then ask _before_ releasing! :-) Yes, I know, I was sure, the problem is: I was wrong :) -- Alessio Treglia Debian & Ubuntu Developer | Homep

Re: Accepted faad2 2.7-5 (source amd64)

2010-11-22 Thread Fabian Greffrath
Am 22.11.2010 09:48, schrieb Alessio Treglia: Yes, it is: I ap Sorry? As alternative, we could upload a 2.7-4+squeeze1 release to t-p-u, what do you think? Yes, even better. This would save us another upload to unstable to re-enable the bpa-stdin.patch. - Fabian ___

Re: Accepted faad2 2.7-5 (source amd64)

2010-11-22 Thread Alessio Treglia
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 9:47 AM, Fabian Greffrath wrote: > Am 20.11.2010 12:37, schrieb Alessio Treglia: >> >> Oh god, I made a mistake. >> I get a lot of confusion while trying to re-upload the package, maybe >> I've switched to the wrong git branch. > > You've messed up the changelog, IMHO it's

Re: Accepted faad2 2.7-5 (source amd64)

2010-11-22 Thread Fabian Greffrath
Am 20.11.2010 12:37, schrieb Alessio Treglia: Oh god, I made a mistake. I get a lot of confusion while trying to re-upload the package, maybe I've switched to the wrong git branch. You've messed up the changelog, IMHO it's not that bad and can be fixed in the next upload. ;) What's a bit wor

Re: Accepted faad2 2.7-5 (source amd64)

2010-11-20 Thread Jonas Smedegaard
On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 12:37:59PM +0100, Alessio Treglia wrote: Oh god, I made a mistake. I get a lot of confusion while trying to re-upload the package, maybe I've switched to the wrong git branch. Plus, some changelog entries are missing: what do now? If you where fast (i.e. for another t

Re: Accepted faad2 2.7-5 (source amd64)

2010-11-20 Thread Alessio Treglia
Oh god, I made a mistake. I get a lot of confusion while trying to re-upload the package, maybe I've switched to the wrong git branch. Plus, some changelog entries are missing: what do now? On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 12:32 PM, Fabian Greffrath wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA