Re: Reminder to update timestamps before sponsoring (or maybe not :))
On 07/07/2011 12:23 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote: > On Thursday, July 07, 2011 01:19:07 AM Micah Gersten wrote: >> smarty3 (3.0.8-0ubuntu1) oneiric; urgency=low >> >>> * New upstream release. (LP: #801924) >>> >>> Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2011 12:38:31 +0100 >>> Changed-By: Mat Scales >>> Maintainer: Ubuntu Developers >>> Signed-By: Micah Gersten >>> https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/oneiric/+source/smarty3/3.0.8-0ubuntu1 >> I goofed here, but seems like it's a good opportunity for another PSA >> (Public Service Announcement) since I found a handful of others like >> it in the last 24 hours. One should try to update the timestamp >> before sponsoring/uploading a package. This can be accomplished with >> either 'dch -m -r' for sponsoring or just 'dch -r' for one's own upload. > Why should one do this? > > Scott K > Apparently I thought it was a good idea and was under the impression that it was widely done, but I find no reference to updated timestamps in Debian policy, so I guess this was all in my head. I apologize for the noise. I will however explain why I think it's a good idea in any case. The changelog is what is pushed to the user's system and also is a snapshot of the history of the package. When I was commenting above about timestamps being off, I was referring to where it was off by more than one day, not just a few hours or minutes. This seems counterintuitive to see something uploaded on a certain date, but dated much before then. It would seem to make sense to keep this relatively in line with when events occur. Perhaps someone with a historical perspective can explain what the intended goal of the timestamp in the changelog was. Thanks, Micah -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: Reminder to update timestamps before sponsoring (was: Re: [ubuntu/oneiric] smarty3 3.0.8-0ubuntu1 (Accepted))
On Thursday, July 07, 2011 01:19:07 AM Micah Gersten wrote: > smarty3 (3.0.8-0ubuntu1) oneiric; urgency=low > > > * New upstream release. (LP: #801924) > > > > Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2011 12:38:31 +0100 > > Changed-By: Mat Scales > > Maintainer: Ubuntu Developers > > Signed-By: Micah Gersten > > https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/oneiric/+source/smarty3/3.0.8-0ubuntu1 > > I goofed here, but seems like it's a good opportunity for another PSA > (Public Service Announcement) since I found a handful of others like > it in the last 24 hours. One should try to update the timestamp > before sponsoring/uploading a package. This can be accomplished with > either 'dch -m -r' for sponsoring or just 'dch -r' for one's own upload. Why should one do this? Scott K -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Reminder to update timestamps before sponsoring (was: Re: [ubuntu/oneiric] smarty3 3.0.8-0ubuntu1 (Accepted))
smarty3 (3.0.8-0ubuntu1) oneiric; urgency=low > > * New upstream release. (LP: #801924) > > Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2011 12:38:31 +0100 > Changed-By: Mat Scales > Maintainer: Ubuntu Developers > Signed-By: Micah Gersten > https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/oneiric/+source/smarty3/3.0.8-0ubuntu1 I goofed here, but seems like it's a good opportunity for another PSA (Public Service Announcement) since I found a handful of others like it in the last 24 hours. One should try to update the timestamp before sponsoring/uploading a package. This can be accomplished with either 'dch -m -r' for sponsoring or just 'dch -r' for one's own upload. Micah -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Patch pilot report, 2011-07-07.
Patch pilot report: lp:~om26er/ubuntu/natty/libimobiledevice/fix-iOS5-support-2 lp:~om26er/ubuntu/maverick/libimobiledevice/fix-iOS5-support lp:~om26er/ubuntu/lucid/libimobiledevice/fix-iOS5-support Looks good, however IOS 5 beta 2 breaks this patch, so probably best waiting for a new fix from upstream before an SRU is uploaded. https://code.launchpad.net/~jtaylor/ubuntu/oneiric/oval-interpreter/fix-build Fix is being pushed to Debian, where it will automatically sync to Oneiric. Suggested that if the patch submitter feels the update should also be in natty, it should be proposed as such once the fix is into Oneiric. Bug 773763: Looks good, but I suspect this is not a core part of GNOME, so I asked for SRU paperwork. lp~psusi/ubuntu/natty/gnome-power-manager/fix-duplicate-battery Needs SRU paperwork as well as the fix in oneiric. lp:~fougner/ubuntu/oneiric/liboggz/fix-for-789179 Asked the submitter to send this patch to Debian, so we can sync it. https://code.launchpad.net/~amoog/dee-qt/lp-765994 Cannot review, this branch needs to be reviewed by the unity-2d team, as only they can push to the lp:qt-dee branch. lp:~amoog/ubuntu/oneiric/heartbeat/lp-770743 Already merged. lp:~peco/ubuntu/maverick/sessioninstaller/newfix-for-793396 Marked needs fixing, a couple of things eed tidying up. -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
ARM IRC Meeting Reminder
Hi, Every Thursday at 15:00 UTC. We'll be having the usual IRC meeting on #ubuntu-meeting, on Thursday 2011-07-07 at 15:00 UTC. The meeting agenda is available here: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MobileTeam/Meeting/2011/20110707 The meeting history page with links to prior meetings is at: http://wiki.ubuntu.com/MobileTeam/Meeting caio oli -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: Pairing new patch pilots with old patch pilots
On 7 July 2011 05:12, Bryce Harrington wrote: > On Wed, Jul 06, 2011 at 04:40:34PM +0200, Daniel Holbach wrote: >> Hello everybody, >> >> at UDS the question came up if we could double up new and old pilots to >> effectively train new patch pilots and make it easier for new pilots to >> get involved. >> >> What do you think about this? Especially as a new pilot/reviewer, what >> was your experience like? > > Aside from your write-up I don't recall having many other questions. > But I'd been doing sponsoring for a while before that. > > Mostly it is knowing how to do packaging. When I first started at > Canonical I recall you ran a packaging class at one of the sprints > which I found to be very helpful. > > 90% of piloting is easy; the other 10% is weird packaging corner cases. > Perhaps some sort of "packaging challenges" class or something would be > useful? It's worth remembering that (at least as I define it), it's not the patch pilot's job to necessarily personally review every single change; they just need to make sure some action happens on it. That could be giving a review that's not definitive but gives some feedback, or it could be asking for a review from someone more experienced, or asking them how they'd handle it. Almost any action is better than just leaving things sit in the queue. >> If this is deemed helpful, what would a good process/format for this be? > > It probably doesn't need much process. > > "If this is your first time patch piloting, you may feel more > comfortable being a co-pilot your first few runs. Find a pilot in > your timezone and reschedule your time to coincide with theirs." > > Beyond that, I'd say encourage new pilots to go through some packaging > classes to bone up on skills. That sounds good Martin -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: Pairing new patch pilots with old patch pilots
On Wed, Jul 06, 2011 at 04:40:34PM +0200, Daniel Holbach wrote: > Hello everybody, > > at UDS the question came up if we could double up new and old pilots to > effectively train new patch pilots and make it easier for new pilots to > get involved. > > What do you think about this? Especially as a new pilot/reviewer, what > was your experience like? Aside from your write-up I don't recall having many other questions. But I'd been doing sponsoring for a while before that. Mostly it is knowing how to do packaging. When I first started at Canonical I recall you ran a packaging class at one of the sprints which I found to be very helpful. 90% of piloting is easy; the other 10% is weird packaging corner cases. Perhaps some sort of "packaging challenges" class or something would be useful? > If this is deemed helpful, what would a good process/format for this be? It probably doesn't need much process. "If this is your first time patch piloting, you may feel more comfortable being a co-pilot your first few runs. Find a pilot in your timezone and reschedule your time to coincide with theirs." Beyond that, I'd say encourage new pilots to go through some packaging classes to bone up on skills. Bryce -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: Dropping tomboy from the CD at least for part of the oneiric cycle
Hello there, On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 09:00:31PM +0200, Sebastien Bacher wrote: > Hi, > > During the desktop team meeting today we discussed deprecated libs and > CD space, tomboy is keeping libgnome, libgnomeui, libbonobo, > libbonoboui, libgnomecanvas on the CD in oneiric and will until upstream > switches to gsettings which seems to have no mono bindings yet. This was fixed in 1.7.1-1ubuntu1, thanks to Sandy Armstrong. No more libgnome dependency. I look forward to seeing Tomboy back on the CD very soon. :-) Regards, Iain signature.asc Description: Digital signature -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Ubuntu Kernel Team Meeting Minutes - 2011-07-05
= Meeting Minutes = [[http://irclogs.ubuntu.com/2011/07/06/%23ubuntu-meeting.txt|IRC Log of the meeting.]] <> [[http://voices.canonical.com/kernelteam|Meeting minutes.]] == Agenda == [[https://wiki.ubuntu.com/KernelTeam/Meeting#Tues, 06 Jul, 2011|20110706 Meeting Agenda]] === ARM Status === Kernel development: usual CVE fixes across different branches. Oneiric/ti-omap4: we reached an agreement with agreen/linaro to get the TI BSP on top of a vanilla kernel, as a result a new oneiric/master-next-based kernel is in the work - see git://kernel.ubuntu.com/ppisati/ubuntu-oneiric.git ti-omap4-next. Still a WIP, kernel panics on boot ATM, do not use. === Release Metrics and Incoming Regressions === === Release Metrics === oneiric nominated bugs * 30 linux kernel bugs (up 10) Ubuntu oneiric-alpha-2 bugs * 1 linux kernel bugs (up 1) oneiric-updates bugs * 0 linux kernel bugs (no change 0) natty-updates bugs * 24 linux kernel bugs (down 1) maverick-updates bugs * 3 linux kernel bugs (no change 0) lucid-updates bugs * 8 linux kernel bugs (no change 0) hardy-updates bugs * 0 linux kernel bugs (no change 0) === Incoming Bugs === * 33 oneiric bugs (up 5) * 1367 natty bugs (up 21) * 1119 maverick bugs (up 3) * 1036 lucid bugs (up 4) * 39 hardy bugs (up 1) === Regressions === regression-update bugs * 0 oneiric bugs (no change 0) * 5 natty bugs (no change 0) * 43 maverick bugs (up 1) * 81 lucid bugs (up 2) * 0 hardy bugs (no change 0) regression-release bugs * 1 oneiric bugs (up 1) * 447 natty bugs (down 3) * 246 maverick bugs (down 1) * 224 lucid bugs (no change 0) * 2 hardy bugs (no change 0) regression-proposed bugs * 0 oneiric bugs (no change 0) * 2 natty bugs (no change 0) * 1 maverick bugs (no change 0) * 0 lucid bugs (no change 0) * 0 hardy bugs (no change 0) === BluePrint: other-kernel-o-ubuntu-delta-review === The remaining work items here are all tasks to review and upstream patches; apw, lag, manjo, rsalveti, and tgardner please review your item and push it out to oneiric-alpha-3 if you are not going to complete it this week. === BluePrint: other-kernel-o-version-and-flavours === Nothing outstanding for oneiric-alpha-2. === BluePrint: other-kernel-o-server-requirements === * Xen items done * seccomp in progress === Status: Development Kernel Team === Overall we are progressing well, the kernel is stabalising nicely and regressions and bugs seem tractable at this time. We have a number of outstanding tasks for oneiric-alpha-2 which likely will slip further, most are upstreaming tasks and as such not release critical. === Development kernels - Oneiric === The oneiric kernel is currently at 3.0-3.4 which is based on 3.0-rc5 from mainline. As well as the mainline kernel update this kernel also dropped the ARM versatile flavour which is deprecated. <> <> We are in milestone freeze for oneiric-alpha-2 which releases this upcoming thursday. We expect to upload an upstream 3.0-rc6 kernel as soon as the freeze lifts. === Status: Stable Kernel Team === The commits responsible for the known regressions in Lucid and Natty were identified, their kernel packages are not being held anymore. Everything is progressing in the SRU workflow process. <> <> Status now is: * Hardy: kernel in -proposed is in verification. One bug remaining to be verified. * Lucid: Currently in verification. In the end of verification phase it should progress to qa/regression testing and for security-signoff. * Maverick: Currently in verification. No regressions so far. Two bugs remaining to be verified. * Natty: Passed verification, security-signoff done. Waiting for regression-testing to start, and going through certification testing. * Current SRU status is here: http://people.canonical.com/~kernel/reports/sru-report.html === Security & bugfix kernels - Natty/Maverick/Lucid/Hardy === Current Kernel versions are always available here: http://people.canonical.com/~kernel/reports/versions.html || Package|| Upd/Sec || Proposed || TiP || Verified || |||| || || || || || hardylinux || 2.6.24-29.90 || 2.6.24-29.91 ||4 ||3 || || lucidlinux-meta-lts-backport-natty || || 2.6.38.10.20 ||0 ||0 || || --- linux-ec2 || 2.6.32-316.31|| 2.6.32-317.34||3 ||3 || || --- linux-lts-backport-natty || || 2.6.38-10.44~lucid1 ||1 ||1 || || --- linux-ports-meta || 2.6.32.32.24 || 2.6.32.33.25 ||0 ||0 || || --- linux-meta-lts-
Pairing new patch pilots with old patch pilots
Hello everybody, at UDS the question came up if we could double up new and old pilots to effectively train new patch pilots and make it easier for new pilots to get involved. What do you think about this? Especially as a new pilot/reviewer, what was your experience like? If this is deemed helpful, what would a good process/format for this be? Thanks for your feedback. Have a great day, Daniel -- Ubuntu Developer Week: 11th-15th July 2011 https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuDeveloperWeek -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Patch pilot report, 2011-07-06
Hello all, I just finished my patch pilot shift. Only 3 hours today, as I also need to drive Alpha 2. At the beginning of my shift there were 97 items in the queue, at the end 61. = Sync acks = jmdns (#806365) libspring-ldap-java (#806379) codecgraph (#805767) pino (#806388) pion-net (#806389) = Uploaded = rebuild of libpar-packer-perl (#806335): uploaded dnprogs FTBFS (#749176): sent patch to Debian, uploaded cdebootstrap (#806089): uploaded courier merge (#803176): uploaded dbconfig-common lucid SRU (#800543): uploaded ack removal of emacs-snapshot (#789271) openoffice.org-dictionaries (#773136): uploaded https://code.launchpad.net/~sinzui/ubuntu/oneiric/gedit-developer-plugins/gtk3-support/+merge/66733: merged, uploaded courier FTBFS (#803176): uploaded https://code.launchpad.net/~pavolzetor/ubuntu/oneiric/python-twitter/fix-for-702814/+merge/66504: uploaded https://code.launchpad.net/~brian-murray/ubuntu/oneiric/mountall/checking-disks/+merge/66417: merged, uploaded gstm (#749207): uploaded, forwarded patch to Debian https://code.launchpad.net/~paulbrianstewart/ubuntu/oneiric/calibre/803676-803684-typo/+merge/66401: applied to Debian bzr https://code.launchpad.net/~3v1n0/ubuntu/oneiric/libsdl1.2/fix-777417/+merge/66209: uploaded, updated upstream bug https://code.launchpad.net/~3v1n0/ubuntu/oneiric/pygame/fix-777417/+merge/66211: merged, uploaded yelp (#708914): committed to packaging bzr banshee (#735897): uploaded https://code.launchpad.net/~scarneiro/ubuntu/oneiric/gtk-led-askpass/fix-for-770853/+merge/65882: merged, uploaded = Reviewed = https://code.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-branches/ubuntu/oneiric/xorg-docs/oneiric-201107051311/+merge/66899: irrelevant delta, rejected https://code.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-branches/ubuntu/oneiric/cairo-dock-plug-ins/oneiric-201107051811/+merge/66949: Irrelevant delta, rejected https://code.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-branches/ubuntu/oneiric/pkg-config/oneiric-201107030008/+merge/66708: review, asked Steve for details review opendrim-* merge proposals which all have the same problem; set back to WIP, add a comment https://code.launchpad.net/~gandelman-a/ubuntu/oneiric/glance/lp784837/+merge/66400: already uploaded; closed merge proposal and bug https://code.launchpad.net/~dobey/ubuntu/lucid/lazr.restfulclient/fix-803475/+merge/66362: unclear why lucid SRU is needed, asked in the bug -- Martin Pitt| http://www.piware.de Ubuntu Developer (www.ubuntu.com) | Debian Developer (www.debian.org) signature.asc Description: Digital signature -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Updated armel cross toolchains for lucid/maverick/natty releases
Hi Linaro backport PPA [1] got updated to latest versions of armel cross toolchains -- oneiric packages were used as a base. What got changed: - gcc 4.4 was updated to 4.4.6-3ubuntu1 - gcc 4.5 was updated to 4.5.3-1ubuntu2 - binutils was updated to 2.21.52.20110606-1ubuntu1 - eglibc was updated to 2.13-6ubuntu2 - gcc 4.6 was provided as 4.6.0-14ubuntu1 in Maverick, Natty - gcc-defaults-armel-cross was updated to 1.6 in Maverick, Natty (uses gcc-4.6 as default) There is no gcc-4.6 for Lucid currently as it requires newer versions of few libraries (mpfr, mpc) and one of rule of this PPA is "do not update packages which may affect other packages". Please test them and report any bugs found. 1. https://launchpad.net/~linaro-maintainers/+archive/toolchain/ -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
