On 16829 March 1977, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
I put SSH trigger into the room, instead of sudo. You supply the
version
on the ssh cmdline, and if that exists in unstable, a copy-installer
is
run with that version.
That looks very good to me, thanks!
Could even be extended to have source and
On 16824 March 1977, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
I realize that getting a sudo line on fasolo would mean increasing the
security risks quite a bunch for a limited gain. Since we already have
a mechanism to trigger changes in the archive via release team access,
that is
On 16197 March 1977, Paul Gevers wrote:
Albeit there is some progress, we think it better for the people
involved to now say that we will *not* release on July 31.
Unfortunately, that means that we have to start looking for a new date
again. Assuming what we'll learn in the upcoming week or
On 15937 March 1977, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
In an attempt to be slightly more efficient than usual at planning a
point release... it's about a month since 10.6, so let's start looking
at dates for 10.7.
- November 21st
- November 28th
- December 5th
Right now they all look good for me.
--
On 15562 March 1977, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
- November 9th
- November 16th
- November 23rd
All work for me.
--
bye, Joerg
On 15351 March 1977, Jonathan Wiltshire wrote:
- April 27
Wfm.
--
bye, Joerg
On 15286 March 1977, Jonathan Wiltshire wrote:
- Feb 9
- Feb 16
Can deal with both.
--
bye, Joerg
On 15077 March 1977, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
>> - July 7th
>> - July 14th
>> Are people available for either or both of those dates?
> The 7th is looking like the favourite so far (although would mean
> freezing next weekend), but we still need an ftp-master (N)ACK on
> either / both date.
No way
On 15037 March 1977, Jonathan Wiltshire wrote:
> - 23rd Jun
Ok.
> - 7th July
No.
--
bye, Joerg
On 15037 March 1977, Jonathan Wiltshire wrote:
> - May 26th (meaning freeze this coming weekend, which might be a big
> ask)
No.
> - Jun 2nd (which may require an unusual SRM)
Possible.
> - Jun 9th (getting quite a way out of cadence, but maybe that can't be
>helped)
Possible.
--
On 14944 March 1977, Julien Cristau wrote:
> we shipped 9.3 a couple of months ago, so we're overdue for 9.4.
> Can you please let us know your availability on the following:
> - March 3
> - March 10
Can do.
> - March 17
Not very good
> - March 24
> - March 31
No way.
--
bye, Joerg
On 14714 March 1977, Jonathan Wiltshire wrote:
> A month or so from 9.0 bring us to about 15th July. How would any of these
> suit? Is 8.9 at the same time feasible?
> 8/9 July (probably a bit soon)
> 15/16 July
Both of them don't work for me.
> 22/23 July
That I could do.
--
bye, Joerg
On 14611 March 1977, Julien Cristau wrote:
> * April 8-9
No
> * April 15-16
Possible
> * April 22-23
Ok
> * April 29-30
Ok
> * May 6-7
No.
--
bye, Joerg
On 14526 March 1977, Julien Cristau wrote:
> Jan 7th/8th
> Jan 14th/15th
Should work.
> Jan 21st/22nd
> Jan 28th/29th - Cambridge BSP, probably not ideal
> Feb 4th/5th - FOSDEM, probably not great either
> Feb 11th/12th
None of them for me.
--
bye, Joerg
On 14307 March 1977, Julien Cristau wrote:
> with wheezy EOL, we should get a final point release out. In order to
> avoid version skew, it'd be good to have a jessie point release around
> the same time, so if that works for everyone let's do them both on the
> same Saturday again.
> June
On 14247 March 1977, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> I've just activated a few changes to the archive we talk(ed) about for a
> long time. And while it is not exactly the start of this release cycle,
> it should still work out nicely (so one hopes).
Tuesday to now - i think the majority of wh
Am 2016-03-16 01:20, schrieb Steve McIntyre:
I've just activated a few changes to the archive we talk(ed) about for
a
long time. And while it is not exactly the start of this release
cycle,
it should still work out nicely (so one hopes).
As of now, InRelease/Release files, Packages and
On 14037 March 1977, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
We're somewhat overdue for both 8.2 and 7.9 now (in that order). Some
potential September dates:
5/6th - okay for me
12/13th - the 12th doesn't work for me until at least mid-afternoon
19th/20th - looks okay
26th/27th - looks okay
All dates do
On 13951 March 1977, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
Based on received responses and the current date, I'm proposing June 6th
for 8.1 (and then looking at other dates for 7.9). Does that still work
for people?
Sounds ok to me. Start at 10 UTC or earlier/later?
I was assuming either 8ish UTC
On 13947 March 1977, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
As seems to have become the norm, now that Jessie's out it's time to
start planning for the first point release.
We're also a little overdue for 7.9 as Jessie work took precedence; 7.9
really wants to take place after 8.1, as we have some
According to the normal schedule, the point release for 7.3 is due
somewhere around 12th December.
How does everybody look for the weekends of:
14th/5th
21st/22nd
28th/29th December?
Based on the responses so far, if we want to be sure to have an
ftpmaster, SRM and CD-master available
On 13397 March 1977, Jonathan Wiltshire wrote:
According to the normal schedule, the point release for 7.3 is due
somewhere around 12th December.
How does everybody look for the weekends of:
14th/5th
Works
21st/22nd
Should work.
28th/29th December?
Does not work.
--
bye, Joerg
Some
Am 19.08.2013 15:55, schrieb Julien Cristau:
we should start thinking about dates for the 7.2 and 6.0.8 point
releases. Which week-ends in the coming months would work for
ftpmaster, press and cd? (We'd need one date for stable and another
later for oldstable.)
We COULD do both at once, at
As an opening gambit, I'd propose we look at one of the following
Saturdays in January: 14th, 21st, 28th.
21st and 28th (with the respective day after the actual release day, to
do the live images) are fine for me.
The 28th would be preferable for me. Would that still work for everyone
On 12693 March 1977, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
From the experience of etch's EOL point release, we'll need a little
time to sort out any remaining build issues for security packages after
the end of support. The earliest we'd therefore be looking at would be
the weekend of 11/12th February.
On 12693 March 1977, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
Does sound fine to me, but do you really want only one week between the
end of security and the final point release? Its not much time, should
security really push out something that ends up plenty broken... How
high THAT possibility is i dont know,
Hello world,
I don't know if I really got everyone who should have a copy of this
mail in my CC list, so please forward it to wherever you think I am
missing. Thanks.
I just merged a patch from Ansgar to generate the Packages files without
the English description embedded inside them. Instead
On 12594 March 1977, Philipp Kern wrote:
so apparently September is a very bad month to get CDs done. I'm hereby
proposing the following with the hope that we can do it that way:
* Lenny: October 1st
* Squeeze: October 8th
Can we do that, pretty please? :)
Any objections?
I screwed
Note that I've no idea if the change to a with regard to the images
themselves was important. The .debs and .udebs should all be the same, but
e.g. if something was hosed during the process of making images bootable,
that would be... bad.
You are wrong, the binary packages got changed in the
29 matches
Mail list logo
