Hi,
On Fri, 23 Aug 2013, Ian Jackson wrote:
> I think this is starting to convince me that this means I should be
> using a different kind of field name. This isn't really suitable. In
> particular, it shouldn't interact with any deliberate setting of Vcs-*
> by the maintainer.
Yes, "Dgit-Commi
Charles Plessy writes ("Re: Bug#720507: .dsc field for dgit"):
> thank you for your patch and for your work on dgit. In light of the
> discussion about how our infrastructure handles this field, I would
> like to wait for further testing and adoption before adding it to
> the Policy. Please do no
Ian Jackson writes:
> Is just "Dgit" too short ?
Works for me.
Bdale
pgpl5oEkTjw_X.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> block 720176 by 720590
Bug #720176 [dgit] dgit assumes knowledge of the archive layout
720176 was not blocked by any bugs.
720176 was not blocking any bugs.
Added blocking bug(s) of 720176: 720590
> block 720172 by 720590
Bug #720172 [dgit] dgit s
Hi!
On Thu, 2013-08-22 at 18:48:02 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Package: debian-policy
> Version: 3.9.4.0
> I have been working on a new tool for integration between the Debian
> archive and git. The best available description is probably its
> manpage:
> http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijac
Thanks Ian and everybody for your comments.
Here is a simplified patch, written under the assumption of "Dgit" for the
name.
I made the following changes:
- Removed mention that this field is only in Debian source control files and
must not be present in source package control files: it is o
Le Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 12:44:36PM +0100, Ian Jackson a écrit :
> Charles Plessy writes ("Re: Bug#720507: .dsc field for dgit"):
>
> > PS: off-topic question: do you have comments to make about the documentation
> > of Dpkg's triggers to the Policy ?
>
> I'm afraid I haven't had a chance to revie
7 matches
Mail list logo
