Package: ftp.debian.org
I see that diffutils_1:3.2-6, which was uploaded with urgency=low,
will only need 5 days to enter testing, probably because I made
1:3.2-4 to be urgency=medium. I don't know when you changed the
algorithm but I think it is a bad change.
In this case, the reason to modify
reassign 671066 release.debian.org
thanks
Santiago Vila sanv...@unex.es writes:
I see that diffutils_1:3.2-6, which was uploaded with urgency=low,
will only need 5 days to enter testing, probably because I made
1:3.2-4 to be urgency=medium. I don't know when you changed the
algorithm but I
Ansgar Burchardt ans...@debian.org (01/05/2012):
Santiago Vila sanv...@unex.es writes:
I see that diffutils_1:3.2-6, which was uploaded with urgency=low,
will only need 5 days to enter testing, probably because I made
1:3.2-4 to be urgency=medium. I don't know when you changed the
On 01.05.2012 18:23, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
Ansgar Burchardt ans...@debian.org (01/05/2012):
Santiago Vila sanv...@unex.es writes:
I see that diffutils_1:3.2-6, which was uploaded with urgency=low,
will only need 5 days to enter testing, probably because I made
1:3.2-4 to be urgency=medium.
On Tue, May 01, 2012 at 07:10:20PM +0200, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
Santiago Vila sanv...@unex.es writes:
I see that diffutils_1:3.2-6, which was uploaded with urgency=low,
will only need 5 days to enter testing, probably because I made
1:3.2-4 to be urgency=medium. I don't know when you
On Tue, 1 May 2012, Philipp Kern wrote:
However, if urgencies accumulate, how are we supposed to really mean
10 days after an upload not of low priority? It's impossible!
No. The idea is that if you specify urgency=medium that *this* *change* (not
upload!) should go into testing in an
On Tue, 1 May 2012, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
Adam D. Barratt a...@adam-barratt.org.uk (01/05/2012):
It's been that way for at least four years; I suspect a good deal
longer but don't have the evidence immediately available. The start
of the release team's britney1 repository, when we took
On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 23:41:59 +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
Anyway, I'm afraid you guys are now so used to the new behaviour that
there is no room for debate here, which is sad, so I'll stop here.
It's nothing new, it's about as old as the existence of testing itself.
Cheers,
Julien
On Tue, 2012-05-01 at 23:41 +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
On Tue, 1 May 2012, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
Adam D. Barratt a...@adam-barratt.org.uk (01/05/2012):
It's been that way for at least four years; I suspect a good deal
longer but don't have the evidence immediately available. The
El 02/05/12 00:01, Adam D. Barratt escribió:
After a little bit of research, the mighty archive.org has old copies of
the code, albeit not in a revision-controlled format. The earliest
version recorded there is from April 2004 and assuming I'm reading its
read_urgencies method correctly already
10 matches
Mail list logo
