Re: BTRFS tools 0.18 and FF exception...
Daniel J Blueman wrote: > The current version of btrfs-tools in jaunty is 0.16 i'm not involved in ubuntu, do not cc me, thanks. http://people.debian.org/~daniel/documents/ubuntu.html -- Address:Daniel Baumann, Burgunderstrasse 3, CH-4562 Biberist Email: daniel.baum...@panthera-systems.net Internet: http://people.panthera-systems.net/~daniel-baumann/ -- Ubuntu-motu mailing list Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
BTRFS tools 0.18 and FF exception...
The current version of btrfs-tools in jaunty is 0.16, which is incompatible with BTRFS in 2.6.29 (when it's released in ~3 weeks). Chris Mason may perform a standalone, unsupported BTRFS release for 2.6.28, so developers will be able to build this against jaunty's stock kernel also. Both of these paths will require the current btrfs-tools 0.18 release, as the mkfs.btrfs 0.16 in jaunty isn't disk-format compatible. As BTRFS support isn't provided with jaunty or it's kernel, is there any harm in someone spining btrfs-tools 0.18 and getting it through the feature freeze? -- Daniel J Blueman -- Ubuntu-motu mailing list Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
Re: Staging area for REVU uploads?
On 22/02/2009, at 04.45, Stefan Potyra wrote: > hm... not too sure: Just adding *all* packages on revu to my pbuilder > environment is something which I feel uncomfortable with. > Personally, I use > mini-dinstall for this task, because it lets me explicitely select > which > package I want to be able to see in my pbuilder environment. You wouldn't be adding _all_ REVU packages to your pbuilder environment, only the ones that passed muster and got +2 votes. A package would be uploaded to Ubuntu's archive if it's open, otherwise the PPA. I think it is important to maintain that packages in the PPA would have the same high quality as the distributed ones, except they didn't make the current distribution for administrative reasons etc. Cheers, Morten -- Ubuntu-motu mailing list Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
Re: Staging area for REVU uploads?
On 22/02/2009, at 12.47, Michael Bienia wrote: > On 2009-02-21 20:52:47 +0100, Morten Kjeldgaard wrote: >> Oh, I didn't make it quite clear: I imagine that packages uploaded to >> the PPA would be the ones that passed reviewing with 2 advocates. So >> essentially, these package would be in a state ready for upload to >> Ubuntu's archive. I agree that dealing with every upload in the PPA >> would be unmanagable. > > I guess I'm missing something here. When a package has two advocates > why > not upload it to the archive? Or do you mean upload it to the archive > and to the PPA? What's the benefit of it? Is the NEW processing that > slow that it blocks reviewing? After FF there's a period of ~ 2 months where we can't upload new packages. I would be good to be able to finish the processing of those packages that are _almost_ finished, but just didn't make it. While it's still in fresh memory of the reviewers and uploaders. Also, many uploaders are quite disappointed. It would be a consolation if we published those packages that didn't quite make it (but still get +2 votes) on the PPA. They should be compiled for the version they "missed", currently jaunty. Thus, the PPA would contain a "preview" of packages that didn't make it for jaunty, but will be included in karmic. Cheers, Morten -- Ubuntu-motu mailing list Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
Re: Staging area for REVU uploads?
On 2009-02-21 20:52:47 +0100, Morten Kjeldgaard wrote: > Oh, I didn't make it quite clear: I imagine that packages uploaded to > the PPA would be the ones that passed reviewing with 2 advocates. So > essentially, these package would be in a state ready for upload to > Ubuntu's archive. I agree that dealing with every upload in the PPA > would be unmanagable. I guess I'm missing something here. When a package has two advocates why not upload it to the archive? Or do you mean upload it to the archive and to the PPA? What's the benefit of it? Is the NEW processing that slow that it blocks reviewing? Michael -- Ubuntu-motu mailing list Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
