On Thursday, October 06, 2011 10:03:26 AM Matthias Klose wrote:
> On 10/05/2011 10:47 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > On Wednesday, October 05, 2011 09:30:22 PM Sebastien Bacher wrote:
> >> To take an example I think porting universe GNOME2 applets to GNOME3
> >> wouldn't be a good use of our time,
On Thursday, October 06, 2011 03:27:13 PM Colin Watson wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 06, 2011 at 04:00:55PM +0200, Sebastien Bacher wrote:
> > Le jeudi 06 octobre 2011 à 13:28 +0100, Iain Lane a écrit :
> > > You might not ever hear about it, but every time something is
> > > removed you are potentially let
On Thu, Oct 06, 2011 at 04:00:55PM +0200, Sebastien Bacher wrote:
> Le jeudi 06 octobre 2011 à 13:28 +0100, Iain Lane a écrit :
> > You might not ever hear about it, but every time something is
> > removed you are potentially letting people down.
>
> Right, but every time an annoying but in a sof
Le jeudi 06 octobre 2011 à 13:28 +0100, Iain Lane a écrit :
> You
> might not ever hear about it, but every time something is removed you
> are potentially letting people down.
Right, but every time an annoying but in a software that 90% of our
users run is not fixed because the time has been spe
Hello,
On Wed, Oct 05, 2011 at 09:30:22PM +0200, Sebastien Bacher wrote:
> Le mercredi 05 octobre 2011 à 16:08 +0200, Matthias Klose a écrit :
> >
> > During the oneiric development cycle we had syncs of library packages
> > from
> > experimental, introducing new sonames, and changing APIs in a w
Hello,
On Wed, Oct 05, 2011 at 05:21:05PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 05, 2011 at 04:17:43PM +0100, Iain Lane wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 05, 2011 at 03:55:54PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> > > […]
> > > > All three cases have in common that the packages were left alone for
> > > > month
On 10/05/2011 10:47 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 05, 2011 09:30:22 PM Sebastien Bacher wrote:
>> To take an example I think porting universe GNOME2 applets to GNOME3
>> wouldn't be a good use of our time, we better spend the resources we
>> have making sure our current desktop
On Wed, Oct 05, 2011 at 04:17:43PM +0100, Iain Lane wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 05, 2011 at 03:55:54PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> > […]
> > > All three cases have in common that the packages were left alone for
> > > months. The third example could have been avoided if we could check
> > > build depende
Am Mittwoch, den 05.10.2011, 14:35 -0400 schrieb Barry Warsaw:
> On Oct 05, 2011, at 07:07 PM, Stefano Rivera wrote:
>
> >The sponsors not requesting testing and a transition effort commitment
> >is something I've noticed too. I see transition sync requests that I
> >don't look at immediately beca
... or LP could talk to the tracker via a web API :P
-Rob
--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
On Wed, 2011-10-05 at 16:08 +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
>
> - Get approval for a library sync from experimental, listing
>the rdepends, API changes, and estimate the effort to
>complete this library transition.
Being involved in a small part of the cleanup, I would agree. I think
this o
2011/10/5 Colin Watson :
> I don't want to add extra archive-admin checking to the sync process;
> firstly, we're moving towards self-service syncs anyway, and secondly,
> as the libav example shows, syncs aren't really special here.
I agree that this shouldn't be an archive-admin job. However, du
On Wednesday, October 05, 2011 09:30:22 PM Sebastien Bacher wrote:
> Le mercredi 05 octobre 2011 à 16:08 +0200, Matthias Klose a écrit :
> > During the oneiric development cycle we had syncs of library packages
> > from
> > experimental, introducing new sonames, and changing APIs in a way that
> >
2011/10/5 Sebastien Bacher :
> Le mercredi 05 octobre 2011 à 16:08 +0200, Matthias Klose a écrit :
>> During the oneiric development cycle we had syncs of library packages
>> from experimental, introducing new sonames, and changing APIs in a way that
>> other
> The issue is not really specific to e
Le mercredi 05 octobre 2011 à 16:08 +0200, Matthias Klose a écrit :
>
> During the oneiric development cycle we had syncs of library packages
> from
> experimental, introducing new sonames, and changing APIs in a way that
> other
Hi,
The issue is not really specific to experimental, that could
Hi Barry (2011.10.05_20:35:43_+0200)
> Maybe we need to find ways to flag such potentially troublesome syncs early in
> the process, so that it's more clear to the developer and/or sponsor.
I feel that it should be obvious, if we are actually making any effort
to review the sync, beyond "does it b
On Oct 05, 2011, at 07:07 PM, Stefano Rivera wrote:
>The sponsors not requesting testing and a transition effort commitment
>is something I've noticed too. I see transition sync requests that I
>don't look at immediately because they'll need a fair amount of review,
>and 10 mins later someone has
On Wed, Oct 05, 2011 at 07:07:03PM +0200, Stefano Rivera wrote:
> Hi Scott (2011.10.05_18:23:38_+0200)
> > If it's not clear that developers are responsible for this, then we
> > ought to communicate this better (and I include if you sponsor such
> > an upload/sync then I think you are on the hook
Hi Scott (2011.10.05_18:23:38_+0200)
> When I started a library transition I've always felt it was my job to drive it
> to closure.
That's certainly what I've always seen people say when asked how
transitions were managed in Ubuntu.
> If it's not clear that developers are responsible for this, t
On Wednesday, October 05, 2011 04:17:43 PM Iain Lane wrote:
> Hiya,
>
> On Wed, Oct 05, 2011 at 03:55:54PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> > […]
> >
> > > All three cases have in common that the packages were left alone for
> > > months. The third example could have been avoided if we could check
>
Hiya,
On Wed, Oct 05, 2011 at 03:55:54PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> […]
> > All three cases have in common that the packages were left alone for
> > months. The third example could have been avoided if we could check
> > build dependencies when syncing, and rejecting the sync when the
> > b-d's
On Wed, Oct 05, 2011 at 04:08:31PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> During the oneiric development cycle we had syncs of library packages from
> experimental, introducing new sonames, and changing APIs in a way that other
> packages need to be ported to the new API, or if the port isn't trivial, need
22 matches
Mail list logo
