Re: Review request for actions outlined in bug 801714
On 12/07/11 01:50, Martin Pool wrote: On 12 July 2011 08:02, Max Bowsher _...@maxb.eu wrote: This bug: https://bugs.launchpad.net/udd/+bug/801714 is a miscellany of import repairs falling under the common heading of removing incorrectly done imports of new upstream versions. I now have jubany access, so can enact these myself - but before I start wielding ./delete_branches_from_lp.py, I wouldn't mind someone glancing over my proposed actions and confirming they're happy. Thanks for addressing that and for asking for review. I want to make sure I understand the impact of these changes. The key point is maxb In all cases, the fix involves truncating the imports back to before the mistake was made, so that the importer can proceed normally again. So what are the revisions that will be evicted from these branches when they're truncated, and does it matter that they are? Looking at for instance https://code.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-branches/ubuntu/oneiric/accerciser/oneiric vs https://code.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-branches/ubuntu/maverick/accerciser/maverick, it seems it's always a commit by an Ubuntu developer bringing in a new upstream with a simple commit, which is pretty much what bug 494481 says. So those revisions will be lost, but the moral equivalent will be recreated by the updated import of the package. It seems reasonably safe to me. Yes, the above summation is correct. 494481 is getting to be quite a long bug because of the specific packages discussed there. I'm not sure how we would specifically detect someone trying to bring in a new upstream without using merge-upstream. Do you have an idea? I think user education would probably suffice. Whilst there is quite a long list of imports to fix *now*, that list has built up over years. With the overall number of failures being driven down, it will become much more likely to spot such issues soon after they arise, and let the person generating the bad non-merge know how to do it properly. If we wished to add active prevention, we could probably come up with a partially successful heuristic, but I'm not convinced we could avoid false-positives reliably enough. Max. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital 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
Ubuntu Kernel Team Meeting Minutes - 2011-07-12
= Meeting Minutes = [[http://irclogs.ubuntu.com/2011/07/12/%23ubuntu-meeting.txt|IRC Log of the meeting.]] BR [[http://voices.canonical.com/kernelteam|Meeting minutes.]] == Agenda == [[https://wiki.ubuntu.com/KernelTeam/Meeting#Tues, 12 Jul, 2011|20110712 Meeting Agenda]] === ARM Status === Kernel development: nothing to report. Oneiric/ti-omap4: got a new drop from agreen, this time with video, audio, 3d support, etcetc. Rebased it on top of 3.0.0-rc6 and work is ongoing to produce the new Oneiric kernel based on it. === Release Metrics and Incoming Bugs === oneiric nominated bugs * 30 linux kernel bugs (up 10) Ubuntu oneiric-alpha-3 bugs * 2 linux kernel bugs (up 2) oneiric-updates bugs * 0 linux kernel bugs (no change 0) natty-updates bugs * 23 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 === * 40 oneiric bugs (up 7) * 1380 natty bugs (up 13) * 1120 maverick bugs (up 1) * 1033 lucid bugs (down 3) * 39 hardy bugs (no change 0) === Regressions === regression-update bugs * 0 oneiric bugs (no change 0) * 5 natty bugs (no change 0) * 43 maverick bugs (no change 0) * 81 lucid bugs (no change 0) * 0 hardy bugs (no change 0) regression-release bugs * 0 oneiric bugs (down 1) * 447 natty bugs (no change 0) * 245 maverick bugs (down 1) * 223 lucid bugs (down 1) * 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) === Blueprints: Oneiric Server Requirements === As last week. Only the seccomp mode 2 stuff and that is waitied for === Status: General Oneiric === I was out last week, but we've recently uploaded the 3.0.0-5.6 Oneiric kernel. It's based on the latest v3.0-rc7 mainline kernel. We've also converged upon using a 3 digit version scheme for our Ubuntu kernel version, ie. 3.0.0 rather than 3.0 === Status: Stable Kernel Team === Status of kernels: Detailed information here: http://people.canonical.com/~kernel/reports/sru-report.html Hardy [[https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/801636]] BR Kernel in -proposed is awaiting QA and/or Certification testing Lucid [[https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/807175]] BR Kernel in -proposed is awaiting security signoff before publishing to -updates and possibly -security Maverick [[https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/808934]] BR Kernel in PPA if currently awaiting copy to -proposed. This is a kernel with reverts after verification, and will not require reverification. Therefore, it will be queued for QA and Certification upon being copied to -proposed Natty [[https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/802464]] BR Kernel in -proposed is ready to be published to -updates and -security There was a failure of this kernel in QA due to a kernel option that was not correctly set. This option had been changed to work around some problems in the ec2 environment. Those issues have been resolved and the option can be returned to the former state. This was not serious enough of an issue to prevent releasing this kernel. === Security bugfix kernels - 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 ||4 || || lucidlinux-meta-lts-backport-natty || || 2.6.38.10.20 ||0 ||0 || || --- linux-ec2 || 2.6.32-316.31|| 2.6.32-317.36||4 ||4 || || --- 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-backport-maverick || 2.6.35.25.36 || 2.6.35.30.38 ||0 ||0 || || --- linux-lts-backport-maverick || 2.6.35-25.44~lucid1 || 2.6.35-30.54~lucid1 || 21 || 21 || || --- linux-meta|| 2.6.32.32.38 || 2.6.32.33.39 ||0 ||0 || || --- linux-firmware|| 1.34.7 || 1.34.10 ||0 ||0 || || --- linux
input/output trouble cause segmentation fault
Dear advanced c/g++ programers:
A program request me to enter twice input
that program probably is tested good on visual c++ 7.1 on window xp,
but my system is g++ on linux(Ubuntu10.04)
It assume
Enter some strings: a b c d
^Z
Enter some more strings: d e f g
^Z
Union: a b c d e f g
Difference: a b c
Intersection: d
all these you can get from page 273 and 274 of book(c++ cookbook)
but my test result is
---
eric@eric-laptop:~/cppcookbook/ch7$ ./a.out
Enter a series of strings: a b c d
^Z
[7]+ Stopped ./a.out
eric@eric-laptop:~/cppcookbook/ch7$ ./a.out
Enter a series of strings: a b c d
{a, b, c, d}
Segmentation fault
---
second case , I used EnterControl-D
first case, I used EnterControl-Z
the following is the program I tested, you still can download from
http://examples.oreilly.com/9780596007614/
// Example 7-8. Unsing set operations
#include iostream
#include algorithm
#include string
#include set
#include iterator
#include utils.h // For parintContainer(): see 7.10
using namespace std;
int main() {
cout Enter some strings:
istream_iteratorstring start(cin);
istream_iteratorstring end;
setstring s1(start, end);
cin.clear();
cout Enter some more strings: ;
setstring s2(++start, end);
setstring setUnion;
setstring setInter;
setstring setDiff;
set_union(s1.begin(), s1.end(),
s2,begin(), s2.end(),
inserter(setUnion, setUnion.begin()));
set_difference(s1.begin(), s1.end(),
s2.begin(), s2.end(),
inserter(setDiff, setDiff.begin()));
cout Union:\n;
printContainer(setUnion);
cout Difference:\n;
printContainer(setDiff);
cout Intersection:\n;
printContainer(setinter);
}
--
utils.h
---
// Example 7-12. Writing your own printing function
#include iostream
#include string
#include algorithm
#include iterator
#include vector
using namespace std;
templatetypename C
void printContainer(const C c, char delim = ',', ostream out = cout)
{
printRange(c.begin(), c.end(), delim, out);
}
templatetypename Fwd
void printRange(Fwd first, Fwd last, char delim = ',', ostream out =
cout) {
out {;
while (first != last) {
out *first;
if (++first != last)
out delim ' ';
}
out } endl;
}
--
Ned and thanks your help a lot in advance
Eric
--
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
