Bug#474632: Bug #474632: josm: Should not enter testing
* Andreas Putzo ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [080524 15:37]: when i opened this bug there was an upcoming Openstreetmap Web API release under development but it wasn't clear when it will be ready and if the API will stay compatible. That's why we decided to keep josm out of lenny until some more information was available. It's now confirmed that the API will indeed be incompatible but chances are good that it will be deployed in june which would mean some weeks left for testing josm and maybe ship it with lenny. In that case, josm should be allowed to enter testing now, so that we can already exhibit (most of) josm some more testing. Of course, it would be helpful if the old Web APIs could stay around for ~2 years - which could be done by having converters for the old vs new api. Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#474632: Bug #474632: josm: Should not enter testing
Hi, On May 21 20:00, Torsten Werner wrote: On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 6:58 PM, Giovanni Mascellani [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: while an out-of-date josm wouldn't work for anyone. every Flickr client, the google data api, instant messager client that talk proprietory protocols and probably more packages have the same problem but we ship them in testing and stable anyway. I still think your bug report is not valid. I have set debian-release on Cc: to get their opinion about this issue. when i opened this bug there was an upcoming Openstreetmap Web API release under development but it wasn't clear when it will be ready and if the API will stay compatible. That's why we decided to keep josm out of lenny until some more information was available. It's now confirmed that the API will indeed be incompatible but chances are good that it will be deployed in june which would mean some weeks left for testing josm and maybe ship it with lenny. We can, however, expect more changes to the OSM API during lenny release cycle. In the past, a new version has been deployed more or less every 6 month. So far, every change of the API was incompatible with no transition period. Upstream stated that they currently do not want to provide a stable API nor provide time for transitions. Provided that the new API is ready in june we could likely ship a working josm with lenny but we can expect its breakage after a few month as well. Regards, Andreas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#474632: Bug #474632: josm: Should not enter testing
Hi, I do not think that the bug is valid. Requiring that josm/stable stays compatible with future OSM-API versions is like requiring that linux-image-*/stable and xorg/stable stays compatible with future hardware. BTS, there is always a slight chance to get an updated version of josm into a stable point release. Cheers, Torsten -- http://twerner.blogspot.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#474632: Bug #474632: josm: Should not enter testing
Il giorno dom, 18/05/2008 alle 18.15 +0200, Torsten Werner ha scritto: I do not think that the bug is valid. Requiring that josm/stable stays compatible with future OSM-API versions is like requiring that linux-image-*/stable and xorg/stable stays compatible with future hardware. BTS, there is always a slight chance to get an updated version of josm into a stable point release. I don't agree: an out-of-date linux or xorg continues to work well on most of the cases (just a few people have new and unsupported hardware), while an out-of-date josm wouldn't work for anyone. I'd love very much to close this bug, but I don't think it would be wise to do it. What would be the slight possibility you're talking about? Do you think we have enough probability that Release Managers let an update of an unknown package like josm enter an already released stable? IANADD, so I can't do other than trust you, if you say that, but I'm quite skeptical about this possibility. :-) Regards, Giovanni. -- Giovanni Mascellani [EMAIL PROTECTED] Pisa, Italy Web: http://giomasce.altervista.org SIP: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] / [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG: 0x5F1FBF70 (FP: 1EB6 3D43 E201 4DDF 67BD 003F FCB0 BB5C 5F1F BF70) signature.asc Description: Questa รจ una parte del messaggio firmata digitalmente
