Bug#829205: RFS: btrfs-progs/4.5.3-0.1

Hi Adam, On 8 July 2016 at 08:58, Adam Borowski wrote: > Might be RC but certainly isn't urgent. I don't see Nicholas pointing any > of the upstream changes as immediately important (and I _do_ read > linux-bt...@vger.kernel.org); debian/copyright changes are hardly ever >

Bug#829205: RFS: btrfs-progs/4.5.3-0.1

Hi Dimitri! On 8 July 2016 at 05:27, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote: > On 6 July 2016 at 11:17, Gianfranco Costamagna > wrote: >> Hi, >>>Have you coordinated with Dimitri? When the regular maintainer is active, >> >>>NMUs are appropriate for urgent

Bug#829205: RFS: btrfs-progs/4.5.3-0.1

On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 09:42:10AM +, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote: > control: owner -1 x...@debian.org Sounds more like "close" to me... > >lowNMU is not meant for hostile takeovers of the package, ok?! =) > > sure, this is why only one NMU was done on your package :) I'd guess the

Bug#829205: RFS: btrfs-progs/4.5.3-0.1

control: owner -1 x...@debian.org Hi Dimitri! >lowNMU is not meant for hostile takeovers of the package, ok?! =) sure, this is why only one NMU was done on your package :) >And I have accepted some patches from you, not all, and I did respond >to you about that. > >The urgency about the

Bug#829205: RFS: btrfs-progs/4.5.3-0.1

Hello, On 6 July 2016 at 11:17, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote: > control: owner -1 ! > control: tags -1 moreinfo > > Hi, >>Have you coordinated with Dimitri? When the regular maintainer is active, > >>NMUs are appropriate for urgent changes, not for regular work. Ie,

Bug#829205: RFS: btrfs-progs/4.5.3-0.1

Hi Gianfranco! On 6 July 2016 at 05:17, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote: >>I'd say the important points to convey are "1. many contributors, 2. GPL2". > > > Actually I agree, I try to sum up files for licenses, instead of copyright > holders > e.g. > all the autoconf*

Bug#829205: RFS: btrfs-progs/4.5.3-0.1

Hi Adam, Thank you for taking the time to help me along the way and to produce higher quality work. On 5 July 2016 at 22:12, Adam Borowski wrote: > >> * Fix serious errors in debian/copyright. This is not a GPL2+ package. >> Cme was used to generate a

Bug#829205: RFS: btrfs-progs/4.5.3-0.1

control: owner -1 ! control: tags -1 moreinfo Hi, >Have you coordinated with Dimitri? When the regular maintainer is active, >NMUs are appropriate for urgent changes, not for regular work. Ie, instead >of random sponsors, I'd suggest letting him do uploads. > >As you've helped with this

Bug#829205: RFS: btrfs-progs/4.5.3-0.1

Hi! On Fri, Jul 01, 2016 at 08:16:14AM -0400, Nicholas D Steeves wrote: > I am looking for a sponsor for this update of "btrfs-progs". Have you coordinated with Dimitri? When the regular maintainer is active, NMUs are appropriate for urgent changes, not for regular work. Ie, instead of random

Bug#829205: RFS: btrfs-progs/4.5.3-0.1

Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for this update of "btrfs-progs". I have chosen to update to v4.5.3, because this version does not trigger a bug when combined with linux-4.6.x as discussed in the following email: