UDD meeting change
Please note the following time change: At least for the rest of the northern summer, we're bumping the UDD meetings up by one hour. They will now be held at 1200 UTC. See you on 13-July. Cheers, -Barry signature.asc Description: PGP signature -- ubuntu-distributed-devel mailing list ubuntu-distributed-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-distributed-devel
Re: Reminder to update timestamps before sponsoring (or maybe not :))
Hi Micah (2011.07.07_07:44:57_+0200) 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? Apparently I thought it was a good idea and was under the impression that it was widely done With DEBCHANGE_RELEASE_HEURISTIC=changelog, dch won't touch a timestamp while an entry is still UNRELEASED. When it's released (dch -r), often by a sponsor, the timestamp is updated. In debdiff / merge proposal reviews, if there are a few rounds of review, the timestamp can get very out of date. Sometimes by months. It's also quite common for sponsorees to edit the changelog without dch, and thus not bump the timestamp. sponsor-patch touches timestamps before uploading. I do it in my sponsorship in Debian (team and single-maintainer) too. This seems counterintuitive to see something uploaded on a certain date, but dated much before then. Yeah, I thank that's a pretty good reason to bump it. SR -- Stefano Rivera http://tumbleweed.org.za/ H: +27 21 465 6908 C: +27 72 419 8559 UCT: x3127 -- 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
I switch my patch pilot day as I won't be available next week for doing it. https://code.launchpad.net/~jtaylor/ubuntu/oneiric/qtemu/fix-756221/+merge/67153 approved, ensured that it was sent upstream and to debian, and merged. https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/806923 sync req acked https://code.launchpad.net/~scarneiro/ubuntu/oneiric/opendrim-lmp-recordlog/fix-for-756108/+merge/67110 https://code.launchpad.net/~scarneiro/ubuntu/oneiric/opendrim-lmp-ssh/fix-for-756110/+merge/67112 https://code.launchpad.net/~scarneiro/ubuntu/oneiric/opendrim-lmp-cpu/fix-for-756128/+merge/67113 https://code.launchpad.net/~scarneiro/ubuntu/oneiric/opendrim-lmp-pci/fix-for-756050/+merge/67107 https://code.launchpad.net/~scarneiro/ubuntu/oneiric/opendrim-lmp-baseserver/fix-for-756081/+merge/67108 • test built, check it was fwed upstream and uploaded https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/libgtk2-perl/+bug/805778 • sponsored https://code.launchpad.net/~dmitrij.ledkov/ubuntu/oneiric/etckeeper/dhpy2/+merge/65741 * sponsored. Ask to send the changes to debian https://code.launchpad.net/~elvisd79/ubuntu/oneiric/compiz-plugins-main/fix-for-772177/+merge/65740 - had to set the branch as WIP as I couldn't reject it. the branch link to a bug where I already rejected the exact same patch with a ful rationale. I directly copy those explanation on the bug report (https://bugs.launchpad.net/hundredpapercuts/+bug/772177/comments/8) hoping that people will read it this time. :) https://code.launchpad.net/~jpickett/ubuntu/oneiric/ubuntu-docs/fix-for-804855-bitesize/+merge/67200 - lot of conflicts for just a typo change, seems the base branch isn't the same. I refused the merge and tell the newcomer to either retry from a fresh branch or come on IRC to get some online help. I took a look at some import branches conflicts, some are interesting: https://code.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-branches/ubuntu/oneiric/opendrim-lmp-powermanagement/oneiric-201107070710/+merge/67122 - the patch and content is in the source package. The thing is, as it was the first patch, the debian/patches directory was created in both branches, and so the ids don't match, hence the conflict. Any idea how to detect (making a traditional diff first?) and not make the autoimporter conflicting? To avoid further conflicts, as I couldn't set the status to rejected but still waiting to get the MR off the list, I set the status to WIP. I didn't simply deleted it as maybe James wants to do some autogenerated branch cleanup. I filed https://bugs.launchpad.net/udd/+bug/806940 https://code.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-branches/ubuntu/oneiric/opendrim-lmp-bios/oneiric-201107070710/+merge/67121 https://code.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-branches/ubuntu/oneiric/opendrim-lmp-softwareinventory/oneiric-201107070710/+merge/67120 https://code.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-branches/ubuntu/oneiric/opendrim-lmp-recordlog/oneiric-201107071310/+merge/67184 https://code.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-branches/ubuntu/oneiric/opendrim-lmp-boot/oneiric-201107071348/+merge/67190 https://code.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-branches/ubuntu/oneiric/opendrim-lmp-pci/oneiric-201107071411/+merge/67198 Same issue than above https://code.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-branches/ubuntu/oneiric/banshee/oneiric-201106241409/+merge/65794 Similar issue than above, but with a new file id; https://code.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-branches/ubuntu/oneiric/pkg-config/oneiric-201107030008/+merge/66708 Real issue between the changelog description (and what has been supposed to change) and the upload done. Clarified in a comment the situaton and suscribe slangasek. Removed from the sponsor queue. https://code.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-branches/ubuntu/oneiric/gnome-desktop3/oneiric-201107061510/+merge/67055 known conflict with generated debian/control, reject the merge as not relevant. Set it as WIP and add a comment about it as couldn't delete it. https://code.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-branches/ubuntu/oneiric/dbus/oneiric-201107071212/+merge/67176 There was a staging change (explanation added by Clint) which wasn't taken into account in the last upload. Those staging changes are really easy to miss. The change didn't worth a dbus upload, I just readded it to the udd vcs hoping that next upload will take it :) - this come back to the discussion about should lp:ubuntu/package should reflect what is in the development release or can we stage some pending change there? If so, how can we check easily with everyone's different workflow for uploading that we don't miss something? 21 less elements in the queue! ;) Cheers, Didier -- 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 07/07/2011 12:46 PM, Daniel Holbach wrote: Hello Bryce, Am 06.07.2011 21:12, schrieb Bryce Harrington: I like the idea very much. With the Packaging Training classes [1] we are always looking for people who are willing to talk 10-15 minutes about a topic and answer just a few questions about it. Who would be willing to give a session like that? If it were possible to record (and then post-process/edit into a publicly viewable movie) the terminal session(s) of such a 4 hour shift as done by pitti, cjwatson or other very productive sponsors it would be a much more valuable learning tool than all of the wiki pages we have ATM on the subject IMO. The tutorials and packaging classes usually give a generic overview and work on a simple package which is a good way to get started, whereas a broad coverage of a dozen or more packages in such a sponsoring session surely touch some corner cases and show off existing tools and new ways to use and combine them even for more experienced developers. Jani -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: Patch pilot report 2011-07-07
On Thu, 07 Jul 2011 17:12:29 +0200, Didier Roche didro...@ubuntu.com wrote: https://code.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-branches/ubuntu/oneiric/opendrim-lmp-powermanagement/oneiric-201107070710/+merge/67122 - the patch and content is in the source package. The thing is, as it was the first patch, the debian/patches directory was created in both branches, and so the ids don't match, hence the conflict. Any idea how to detect (making a traditional diff first?) and not make the autoimporter conflicting? To avoid further conflicts, as I couldn't set the status to rejected but still waiting to get the MR off the list, I set the status to WIP. I didn't simply deleted it as maybe James wants to do some autogenerated branch cleanup. I filed https://bugs.launchpad.net/udd/+bug/806940 Thanks. That's not quite what happened. The issue is that the branch didn't contain the same .pc info as the unpacked source package. This is what caused the collision, and the conflicts are just an artefact of a bug in the way that it handles that. I'll update the bug with more info. Thanks, James -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Kubuntu Alpha 2 and KDE 4.7rc1
Salute mes amis! Perhaps you have noticed that there is no Kubuntu alpha 2 announcement. The reason for this is that we were hard at work to get KDE 4.6.90 (aka 4.7rc1) packaged. Currently we are fixing up some remaining issues and prepare for upload to the Ubuntu archive. Now, KDE 4.6.90 is implementing a partially split source tarball distribution. Meaning what previously was kdegraphics are now okular, gwenview, kolourpaint etc.. For additional information on this change you can surely find sufficient amount of information via Google, so I am not going into detail here. Long story short: KDE stuff may break over the next couple of days, so unless you want to take you chances you might want to hold back on upgrades. regards, Harald -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Oneiric Ocelot Alpha 2 Released
Welcome to Oneiric Ocelot Alpha 2, which will in time become Ubuntu 11.10. Pre-releases of Oneiric Ocelot are *not* encouraged for anyone needing a stable system or anyone who is not comfortable running into occasional, even frequent breakage. They are, however, recommended for Ubuntu developers and those who want to help in testing, reporting, and fixing bugs. Alpha 2 is the second in a series of milestone images that will be released throughout the Oneiric development cycle. New packages showing up for the first time include: * Linux Kernel 3.0-rc5 * gcc 4.6.1 compiler * Firefox 5.0 * Thunderbird 5.0 * A Mesa 7.11 snapshot. You can download Alpha 2 images here: http://cdimage.ubuntu.com/releases/oneiric/alpha-2/ (Ubuntu, Ubuntu Server) Additional images are also available at: http://uec-images.ubuntu.com/releases/oneiric/alpha-2/ (Ubuntu Server Cloud ) http://cdimage.ubuntu.com/xubuntu/releases/oneiric/alpha-2/ (Xubuntu) http://cdimage.ubuntu.com/edubuntu/releases/oneiric/alpha-2/ (Edubuntu) Alpha 2 includes a number of software updates that are ready for wider testing. This is quite an early set of images, so you should expect some bugs. For a more detailed description of the changes in the Alpha 2 release and the known bugs (which can save you the effort of reporting a duplicate bug, or help you find proven workarounds), please see: http://www.ubuntu.com/testing/ If you're interested in following the changes as we further develop Oneiric, we suggest that you subscribe initially to the ubuntu-devel-announce list. This is a low-traffic list (a few posts a week) carrying announcements of approved specifications, policy changes, alpha releases, and other interesting events. http://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-announce Enjoy, Kate Stewart, on behalf of the Ubuntu release team. -- ubuntu-devel-announce mailing list ubuntu-devel-announce@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-announce
