On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 4:48 PM, John Arbash Meinel <[email protected]> wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 2/10/2011 9:02 PM, Robert Collins wrote: >> On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 10:59 AM, John Arbash Meinel >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >>> Hash: SHA1 >>> >>> I'm still getting rejection messages trying to post any merge-proposal >>> stuff for loggerhead. >> >> I hope that that is fixed now. >> >>> I'm also stuck with stuff that was originally proposed against the old >>> lp:loggerhead, which is no longer the "future" branch, and I don't have >>> any idea what branch I'm actually supposed to be proposing against or >>> merging into. (nor what the correct method for doing so is.) >> >> If you are finessing the future stuff that was put off into the >> experimental branch, propose a merge to it and get it reviewed by a >> loggerhead-team member (which includes all of ~launchpad - so lots of >> folk that can help). To land in that branch, just land directly. I'd >> like to suggest that only direct fixes to make it ok to land that >> branch should be done there (that and merges from trunk to keep it >> fresh). >> > > Landing stuff directly to loggerhead/experimental seems reasonable. But > I'd rather have PQM in front of lp:loggerhead (trunk). Is it reasonable > to ask for that?
Totally, I prefer that too. > I would assume we could use [email protected], but I'd sort of > rather not. "bzr selftest -s bp.loggerhead" takes less than 10s, and it > really sucks to have that queued up behind 4 Launchpad merge requests. > (which seem to take ~30min even though they don't run the test suite.) > > For now, I can certainly be vigilant about running the test suite. It > feels funny to have it finish so quickly. > > Though I'm also not testing against python-2.5, which I would like to > preserve compatibility with. We could get a pqm or a tarmac configured, for sure. If we just add a rule to the existing bzr pqm that probably meets all your needs and would be easiest. Would that suffice? We'd need to get a one time sync of keys from the lp pqm to get lp folk commit access. Alternatively, there *is* a simple tarmac for lp-oops and some other things, I'm reasonably sure we can add loggerhead/trunk to that easily too; I shall enquire next week when I overlap the relevant folk. -Rob _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
