On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 13:18:02 +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 1:14 PM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
AFAICT, it's 5 days now.
The default urgency in dch is medium now, which britney interprets as
5 days for existing packages. Packages that aren't in testing have
their urgency
On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 12:44 AM, Julien Cristau wrote:
No, packages that aren't in testing only have their urgency ignored if
it's more than medium. So they're candidates for migration after either
5 or 10 days.
Hmm, ok. Thanks for clarifying.
--
bye,
pabs
http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 12:36 PM, Peter Samuelson wrote:
[micah]
it feels like a bit too aggressive pressure for my tastes. I've seen
a lot of developers of packages who have found out their package will
be removed from testing, but don't have the time to resolve the
situation before it gets
On 02/28/2014 09:40 AM, Michael Gilbert wrote:
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 12:36 PM, Peter Samuelson wrote:
[micah]
it feels like a bit too aggressive pressure for my tastes. I've seen
a lot of developers of packages who have found out their package will
be removed from testing, but don't have
On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 1:14 PM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
AFAICT, it's 5 days now.
The default urgency in dch is medium now, which britney interprets as
5 days for existing packages. Packages that aren't in testing have
their urgency ignored IIRC and migrate after 10 days.
--
bye,
pabs
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 3:33 PM, Paul Wise p...@debian.org wrote:
What shall we do? Remove from stable-bpo? Hope an update comes around?
Does it make sense to revisit the rules? Does a wait until testing still
make sense (ok, waiting always makes sense, but beyond the 'let it
settle' thing)
Hi there.
* Paul Tagliamonte paul...@debian.org [2014-02-25 23:59:05 CET]:
I'm sending to both -devel and backports. I'm not sure which is the
correct list. If one's wrong, feel free to drop it in replies.
I've been talking with a mentee about backporting procedures, and I've
explained
Gerfried Fuchs rho...@deb.at writes:
Remove from stable-bpo if it's not expected to come back in is what we
actually do, yes. And to have an overview of these situations I created
myself the diffstats page:
http://backports.debian.org/wheezy-backports/overview/
Looking at the not
On Feb 26, 2014 10:49 AM, micah mi...@debian.org wrote:
For example, say package X has been backported at version 1.0, version
2.0 is uploaded to sid, transitions to jessie and then has an RC bug
that threatens removal.
If the RC bug is properly versioned, then the 1.0 upload, which isn't
Hi.
* micah mi...@debian.org [2014-02-26 16:48:45 CET]:
Gerfried Fuchs rho...@deb.at writes:
Remove from stable-bpo if it's not expected to come back in is what we
actually do, yes. And to have an overview of these situations I created
myself the diffstats page:
[micah]
it feels like a bit too aggressive pressure for my tastes. I've seen
a lot of developers of packages who have found out their package will
be removed from testing, but don't have the time to resolve the
situation before it gets removed, resulting in much pulling of hair.
If only we
* Peter Samuelson pet...@p12n.org [2014-02-26 18:36:10 CET]:
[micah]
it feels like a bit too aggressive pressure for my tastes. I've seen
a lot of developers of packages who have found out their package will
be removed from testing, but don't have the time to resolve the
situation before
On Wed, 2014-02-26 at 09:47 +0100, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
Erm, no, not at all. A package in stable-bpo can't have a newer
version than testing when we release. With the removal there can be two
situations:
* After fixing the issue that got the package removed from testing, the
Nick Phillips nick.phill...@otago.ac.nz writes:
And if the newer version, for example, has updated a database schema in
a non-backward-compatible way?
The same problem would apply to testing, so there would be a very high
incentive to find a way to fix that for testing users. Backports users
Howdy folks,
I'm sending to both -devel and backports. I'm not sure which is the
correct list. If one's wrong, feel free to drop it in replies.
I've been talking with a mentee about backporting procedures, and I've
explained why we don't backport until a package hits tending (stable
stable-bpo
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 6:59 AM, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
However, with the new testing removals from the release team (which is
totally great for creating an always releasable testing, many thanks for
that), we can create a situation where stable-bpo has a newer version
than testing when we
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi there,
Am 26.02.14 00:33, schrieb Paul Wise:
yes ... and the package installed from oldstable-backports is newer
then oldstable. This situation we have had sometimes in the past (eg.
php-suhosin).
The problem that a package, which is in
17 matches
Mail list logo
