On Sat, Oct 27, 2018 at 03:16:55PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Sean Whitton writes:
> > On Sat 27 Oct 2018 at 02:43PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> >> Yup, completely agreed. I was wondering myself if we should start
> >> doing that for exactly this reason (clearing the path for non-normative
Sean Whitton writes:
> On Sat 27 Oct 2018 at 02:43PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Yup, completely agreed. I was wondering myself if we should start
>> doing that for exactly this reason (clearing the path for non-normative
>> changes), but didn't get far enough to write a full proposal and
Hello,
On Sat 27 Oct 2018 at 02:43PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Yup, completely agreed. I was wondering myself if we should start doing
> that for exactly this reason (clearing the path for non-normative
> changes), but didn't get far enough to write a full proposal and then
> forgot about
Sean Whitton writes:
> I would like to suggest that we start committing normative changes to
> Policy to a branch other than master. It could be called 'next'.
> We don't normally release normative changes until we have at least four
> or five changes to release, to avoid bombarding the
On Sat, 27 Oct 2018 12:51:53 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> This might mean we have to manually merge d/changelog, but I think
> that's a reasonable price to pay.
As a side note: merging d/changelog works reasonably well with
dpkg-mergechangelogs(1).
Cheers,
gregor
--
.''`.
[this message is not likely to be of much interest to anyone other than
Russ, since he's the only person other than me who commits to
policy.git, but sending to the list for transparency and any input]
Hello,
I would like to suggest that we start committing normative changes to
Policy to a
6 matches
Mail list logo
