Re: Proposal: Switch to linear git history

2024-01-15 Thread Diederik de Haas
On Monday, 15 January 2024 14:07:42 CET Emanuele Rocca wrote: > A partial explanation for the confusion is that right now the master > branch is where you land changes that target experimental, while the sid > branch is for changes targeting sid. However, obviously not all commits > end up in Debia

Re: Proposal: Switch to linear git history

2024-01-15 Thread Miguel Bernal Marin
Hi, On Mon, Jan 15, 2024 at 09:58:44AM +0100, Bastian Blank wrote: > Hi > > On Sun, Jan 14, 2024 at 09:07:07PM +0100, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote: > > How would in the new scheme typical workflow look like? Maybe this > > could help better understand the proposed changes. As you know in my > > foc

Re: Proposal: Switch to linear git history

2024-01-15 Thread Emanuele Rocca
Hi, On 2024-01-15 01:14, Diederik de Haas wrote: > On Thursday, 21 December 2023 17:30:26 CET Bastian Blank wrote: > > - All changes need to go via master, which they should do anyway. > > I think this as a general rule, with few clearly defined exceptions (like > stable release updates), would

Re: Proposal: Switch to linear git history

2024-01-15 Thread Diederik de Haas
I don't feel qualified on the general topic, but ... On Thursday, 21 December 2023 17:30:26 CET Bastian Blank wrote: > - All changes need to go via master, which they should do anyway. I think this as a general rule, with few clearly defined exceptions (like stable release updates), would be a g

Processed: Re: Bug#1059936: Tracked down `behavior of -n is non-portable`

2024-01-15 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
Processing control commands: > reassign -1 klibc-utils Bug #1059936 [initramfs-tools] initramfs-tools: update-initramfs yields "cp: warning: behavior of -n is non-portable and may change in future" Bug reassigned from package 'initramfs-tools' to 'klibc-utils'. No longer marked as found in versio

Bug#1059936: Tracked down `behavior of -n is non-portable`

2024-01-15 Thread Vincent Lefevre
Control: reassign -1 klibc-utils Control: forcemerge 1055694 -1 Note: Bug 1055694 was initially described as a different bug, but it was retitled on January 9 (to match the change in coreutils), so that it became the same bug as 1059936. Hence the merge. On 2024-01-15 05:09:10 +, Alexander Hu

linux-signed-amd64_6.6.11+1_source.changes ACCEPTED into unstable

2024-01-15 Thread Debian FTP Masters
Thank you for your contribution to Debian. Accepted: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Format: 1.8 Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2024 09:01:06 +0100 Source: linux-signed-amd64 Architecture: source Version: 6.6.11+1 Distribution: sid Urgency: medium Maintainer: Debian Kernel Team Changed-By:

linux-signed-amd64_6.6.11+1_source.changes is NEW

2024-01-15 Thread Debian FTP Masters
Mapping sid to unstable. binary:acpi-modules-6.6.11-amd64-di is NEW. binary:ata-modules-6.6.11-amd64-di is NEW. binary:btrfs-modules-6.6.11-amd64-di is NEW. binary:cdrom-core-modules-6.6.11-amd64-di is NEW. binary:crc-modules-6.6.11-amd64-di is NEW. binary:crypto-dm-modules-6.6.11-amd64-di is NEW.

Processing of linux-signed-amd64_6.6.11+1_source.changes

2024-01-15 Thread Debian FTP Masters
linux-signed-amd64_6.6.11+1_source.changes uploaded successfully to localhost along with the files: linux-signed-amd64_6.6.11+1.dsc linux-signed-amd64_6.6.11+1.tar.xz Greetings, Your Debian queue daemon (running on host usper.debian.org)

Bug#1058758: Bug not fixed in 6.1.69-1

2024-01-15 Thread Kris Lowet
Hi I'm running kernel 6.1.69-1 on Debian 12 stable and this bug is still there. Thanks Kris

Re: Proposal: Switch to linear git history

2024-01-15 Thread Bastian Blank
Hi On Sun, Jan 14, 2024 at 09:07:07PM +0100, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote: > How would in the new scheme typical workflow look like? Maybe this > could help better understand the proposed changes. As you know in my > focus is mainly working on the stable branches, be it to rebase to > more recent st