On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 11:21:49AM -0400, Antoine Beaupré wrote:
> I think what we would need here is a "before/after" set of tricky
> changelog files and flags. Building such a corpus takes time,
> unfortunately, but the actual tests shouldn't be that hard...
Yeah, I agree on that..
Anyway, I've
On 2017-10-23 16:52:01, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 10:33:58AM -0400, Antoine Beaupré wrote:
>> I figured I would do *some* refactoring while I was there to avoid
>> further code duplication.
>
> YES! Please refactor it all :D
>
>> I haven't tested all scenarios (and th
On 2017-10-23 16:52:01, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 10:33:58AM -0400, Antoine Beaupré wrote:
>> I figured I would do *some* refactoring while I was there to avoid
>> further code duplication.
>
> YES! Please refactor it all :D
>
>> I haven't tested all scenarios (and th
Hi!
On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 10:33:58AM -0400, Antoine Beaupré wrote:
> I figured I would do *some* refactoring while I was there to avoid
> further code duplication.
YES! Please refactor it all :D
> I haven't tested all scenarios (and the test suite is limited inthat
> regard) but this mostly w
Control: tags 762715 +patch
On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 12:10:37PM -0400, Antoine Beaupré wrote:
> On 2016-10-28 20:10:43, Holger Levsen wrote:
> >> Since this may change again in the future before this issue is resolved,
> >> maybe it's better to just refer to the LTS notes here:
> >> https://wiki.de
On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 12:10:37PM -0400, Antoine Beaupré wrote:
> On 2016-10-28 20:10:43, Holger Levsen wrote:
> >> Since this may change again in the future before this issue is resolved,
> >> maybe it's better to just refer to the LTS notes here:
> >> https://wiki.debian.org/LTS/Development#Buil
On 2016-10-28 20:10:43, Holger Levsen wrote:
>> Since this may change again in the future before this issue is resolved,
>> maybe it's better to just refer to the LTS notes here:
>> https://wiki.debian.org/LTS/Development#Build_the_update
>
> no. "dch --lts" should do the right thing - and just lik
Hi,
On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 01:23:56PM -0400, Antoine Beaupré wrote:
> I believe a few parameters here are incorrect as they have changed since
> this bug was reported.
>
> * release should be: "wheezy-security"
> * the first log entry should be: "Non-maintainer upload by the Wheezy
> LTS Team.
I believe a few parameters here are incorrect as they have changed since
this bug was reported.
* release should be: "wheezy-security"
* the first log entry should be: "Non-maintainer upload by the Wheezy
LTS Team."
* increment the version like this:
* if a package already e.g. had a +wheezy1
9 matches
Mail list logo