On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 12:31 AM, Steve Langasek
wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 03:43:25PM +0100, Alexander Sack wrote:
>> it's not about automation or not and as I said before, I am surely not
>> fighting automation. I am simply against going back from a
>> potentially-smart, trigger based appr
On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 03:43:25PM +0100, Alexander Sack wrote:
> it's not about automation or not and as I said before, I am surely not
> fighting automation. I am simply against going back from a
> potentially-smart, trigger based approach for one of our CI steps
> (image production) to a cronjob
On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 9:06 PM, Sergio Schvezov
wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 4:39 PM, Robert Park
> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 4:38 AM, Alexander Sack
>> wrote:
>> > On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 1:25 PM, Oliver Grawert wrote:
>> >> why would it matter at all if an image gets promoted
On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 8:39 PM, Robert Park wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 4:38 AM, Alexander Sack wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 1:25 PM, Oliver Grawert wrote:
>>> why would it matter at all if an image gets promoted ... in my ideal
>>> world we would have builds triggered every time a ch
On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Sergio Schvezov
wrote:
> I'm going to stick to the technical side here.
>
> There's one piece of the infra I don't really know yet (britney and/or
> moving from proposed to the archive); I'm going to assume that component is
> britney.
>
> When britney migrates th
On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 4:39 PM, Robert Park wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 4:38 AM, Alexander Sack
> wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 1:25 PM, Oliver Grawert wrote:
> >> why would it matter at all if an image gets promoted ... in my ideal
> >> world we would have builds triggered every time
On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 4:38 AM, Alexander Sack wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 1:25 PM, Oliver Grawert wrote:
>> why would it matter at all if an image gets promoted ... in my ideal
>> world we would have builds triggered every time a change set enters from
>> proposed or at least every 2h ...
On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 4:27 PM, Oliver Grawert wrote:
> hi,
> On Fr, 2013-11-29 at 15:43 +0100, Alexander Sack wrote:
>> >
>> > And the archive is always open, besides the landing team syncing the
>> > landings first in a ppa and then in proposed, so we should always have
>> > an automated job th
On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 4:17 PM, Dave Morley wrote:
> On 29/11/13 14:43, Alexander Sack wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 2:13 PM, Ricardo Salveti de Araujo
>> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 10:55 AM, Oliver Grawert wrote:
On Fr, 2013-11-29 at 13:38 +0100, Alexander Sack wrote
hi,
On Fr, 2013-11-29 at 15:43 +0100, Alexander Sack wrote:
> >
> > And the archive is always open, besides the landing team syncing the
> > landings first in a ppa and then in proposed, so we should always have
> > an automated job that creates such snapshots.
>
> The fact that the archive upload
On 29/11/13 14:43, Alexander Sack wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 2:13 PM, Ricardo Salveti de Araujo
> wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 10:55 AM, Oliver Grawert wrote:
>>> On Fr, 2013-11-29 at 13:38 +0100, Alexander Sack wrote:
On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 1:25 PM, Oliver Grawert wrot
Hi,
On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 2:13 PM, Ricardo Salveti de Araujo
wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 10:55 AM, Oliver Grawert wrote:
>> On Fr, 2013-11-29 at 13:38 +0100, Alexander Sack wrote:
>>> On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 1:25 PM, Oliver Grawert wrote:
>>> > hi,
>>> > On Fr, 2013-11-29 at 13:01 +0100,
On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 2:34 PM, Ursula Junque wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 10:01 AM, Alexander Sack wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 12:41 PM, Oliver Grawert wrote:
>> > hi,
>> > On Fr, 2013-11-29 at 11:32 +0100, Alexander Sack wrote:
>> >> Hi,
>> >>
>> >> it seems you put a few c
On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 10:01 AM, Alexander Sack wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 12:41 PM, Oliver Grawert wrote:
> > hi,
> > On Fr, 2013-11-29 at 11:32 +0100, Alexander Sack wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> it seems you put a few changes up for discussion in one shot.
> >>
> >> Let's keep those separa
On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 10:55 AM, Oliver Grawert wrote:
> On Fr, 2013-11-29 at 13:38 +0100, Alexander Sack wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 1:25 PM, Oliver Grawert wrote:
>> > hi,
>> > On Fr, 2013-11-29 at 13:01 +0100, Alexander Sack wrote:
>> >> On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 12:41 PM, Oliver Grawert
On Fr, 2013-11-29 at 13:38 +0100, Alexander Sack wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 1:25 PM, Oliver Grawert wrote:
> > hi,
> > On Fr, 2013-11-29 at 13:01 +0100, Alexander Sack wrote:
> >> On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 12:41 PM, Oliver Grawert wrote:
> >> > hi,
> >> > On Fr, 2013-11-29 at 11:32 +0100, Ale
On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 1:25 PM, Oliver Grawert wrote:
> hi,
> On Fr, 2013-11-29 at 13:01 +0100, Alexander Sack wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 12:41 PM, Oliver Grawert wrote:
>> > hi,
>> > On Fr, 2013-11-29 at 11:32 +0100, Alexander Sack wrote:
>> >> Hi,
>> >>
>> >> it seems you put a few chan
hi,
On Fr, 2013-11-29 at 13:22 +0100, Alexander Sack wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 1:01 PM, Alexander Sack wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 12:41 PM, Oliver Grawert wrote:
> >> hi,
> >> On Fr, 2013-11-29 at 11:32 +0100, Alexander Sack wrote:
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> it seems you put a few chang
hi,
On Fr, 2013-11-29 at 13:01 +0100, Alexander Sack wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 12:41 PM, Oliver Grawert wrote:
> > hi,
> > On Fr, 2013-11-29 at 11:32 +0100, Alexander Sack wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> it seems you put a few changes up for discussion in one shot.
> >>
> >> Let's keep those sepa
On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 1:01 PM, Alexander Sack wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 12:41 PM, Oliver Grawert wrote:
>> hi,
>> On Fr, 2013-11-29 at 11:32 +0100, Alexander Sack wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> it seems you put a few changes up for discussion in one shot.
>>>
>>> Let's keep those separate and lo
On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 12:41 PM, Oliver Grawert wrote:
> hi,
> On Fr, 2013-11-29 at 11:32 +0100, Alexander Sack wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> it seems you put a few changes up for discussion in one shot.
>>
>> Let's keep those separate and look at them one by one:
>>
>> >From what I see you basically propo
hi,
On Fr, 2013-11-29 at 11:32 +0100, Alexander Sack wrote:
> Hi,
>
> it seems you put a few changes up for discussion in one shot.
>
> Let's keep those separate and look at them one by one:
>
> >From what I see you basically propose three main things:
>
> 1. lets increase velocity of image pr
Hi,
it seems you put a few changes up for discussion in one shot.
Let's keep those separate and look at them one by one:
>From what I see you basically propose three main things:
1. lets increase velocity of image production so we get 2-3 images
produced in devel-proposed per day
2. make cron
On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 4:13 AM, Oliver Grawert wrote:
> My proposal here is to re-enable cron driven builds again.
Yes please!
--
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-phone
Post to : ubuntu-phone@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-phone
More help : htt
hi,
On Do, 2013-11-28 at 17:01 +, Dave Morley wrote:
> On 28/11/13 12:13, Oliver Grawert wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > As some might have noticed we recently had a few bad image releases into
> > the Trusty channel that contained regressions.
> > We also tested out some changes to the build policies
On 28/11/13 12:13, Oliver Grawert wrote:
> Hi,
>
> As some might have noticed we recently had a few bad image releases into
> the Trusty channel that contained regressions.
> We also tested out some changes to the build policies of the proposed
> images that I would like to establish further.
>
Hi,
As some might have noticed we recently had a few bad image releases into
the Trusty channel that contained regressions.
We also tested out some changes to the build policies of the proposed
images that I would like to establish further.
Within the last weeks we raised the amount of built ima
27 matches
Mail list logo
