Hi Pierre-Elliott,
st 15. 8. 2018 v 12:50 odesílatel Pierre-Elliott Bécue
napsal:
> It's done, now. :)
>
thanks a lot.
--
Best regards
Ondřej Nový
Email: n...@ondrej.org
PGP: 3D98 3C52 EB85 980C 46A5 6090 3573 1255 9D1E 064B
Le mercredi 15 août 2018 à 08:43:28+0200, Ondrej Novy a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> st 15. 8. 2018 v 4:12 odesílatel Lars Kruse napsal:
>
> > What's up with the page? https://wiki.debian.org/Python/GitPackagingPQ
>
> thankfully it was merged by Ondrej into
> https://wiki.debian.org/Python/Git
Hi,
st 15. 8. 2018 v 4:12 odesílatel Lars Kruse napsal:
> > What's up with the page? https://wiki.debian.org/Python/GitPackagingPQ
>
> thankfully it was merged by Ondrej into
> https://wiki.debian.org/Python/GitPackaging.
>
yes I merged it "back" to original page. If you know how to redirect
Gi
Hello,
Am Tue, 14 Aug 2018 22:01:50 -0300
schrieb eamanu15 :
> What's up with the page? https://wiki.debian.org/Python/GitPackagingPQ
thankfully it was merged by Ondrej into
https://wiki.debian.org/Python/GitPackaging.
See the details:
https://wiki.debian.org/Python/GitPackaging?action=diff&r
It appears to have been deleted.
Scott K
On August 15, 2018 1:01:50 AM UTC, eamanu15 wrote:
>Hi!
>
>What's up with the page? https://wiki.debian.org/Python/GitPackagingPQ
>
>Regards!
>
>
>El dom., 12 de ago. de 2018 a la(s) 15:21, Dmitry Shachnev <
>mity...@debian.org> escribió:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> O
Hi!
What's up with the page? https://wiki.debian.org/Python/GitPackagingPQ
Regards!
El dom., 12 de ago. de 2018 a la(s) 15:21, Dmitry Shachnev <
mity...@debian.org> escribió:
> Hi,
>
> On Sun, Aug 12, 2018 at 10:20:53AM -0300, eamanu15 wrote:
> > Hello Everybody!
> >
> > Its a good idea use gb
Hi,
On Sun, Aug 12, 2018 at 10:20:53AM -0300, eamanu15 wrote:
> Hello Everybody!
>
> Its a good idea use gbp. Its more easy to use.
>
> Are there some step by step of the use?
There was a link in Scott’s mail:
https://wiki.debian.org/Python/GitPackagingPQ
This page covers the most popular opera
Hello Everybody!
Its a good idea use gbp. Its more easy to use.
Are there some step by step of the use?
Regards!
El sáb., 11 de ago. de 2018 a la(s) 11:16, Scott Kitterman <
deb...@kitterman.com> escribió:
>
>
> On August 11, 2018 1:54:41 PM UTC, Ondrej Novy wrote:
> >Hi,
> >
> >pá 10. 8. 201
On August 11, 2018 1:54:41 PM UTC, Ondrej Novy wrote:
>Hi,
>
>pá 10. 8. 2018 v 22:29 odesílatel Scott Kitterman
>
>napsal:
>
>> Thanks. I'm glad more is going on than people arguing about what's
>wrong
>> with the tool we aren't going to use anymore.
>>
>
>cool :).
>
>What branch layout did yo
Hi,
pá 10. 8. 2018 v 22:29 odesílatel Scott Kitterman
napsal:
> Thanks. I'm glad more is going on than people arguing about what's wrong
> with the tool we aren't going to use anymore.
>
cool :).
What branch layout did you use?
>
I kept original branch names, renaming them is "phase 2".
--
On August 8, 2018 2:10:59 PM UTC, Ondrej Novy wrote:
>Hi,
>
>pá 3. 8. 2018 v 5:06 odesílatel Ondrej Novy napsal:
>
>> 1. convert git-dpm -> gbp
>>
>
>this is done.
Thanks. I'm glad more is going on than people arguing about what's wrong with
the tool we aren't going to use anymore.
What br
Thomas Goirand writes:
> Let's say a patch has been applied upstream. In such case, I just do a
> few "quilt push" to check, then I see one is already applied (by running
> "patch --dry-run -P1 patch from the series file, and I'm done. In case of using git with the
> rebase thing, then I get int
On Thu, 09 Aug 2018 at 10:16:31 +0200, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> Now, if all goes well, and if the above cases are fixed, them I'm fine
> using "gbp pq", but it's not any better than fixing by hand using quilt.
One advantage of both quilt and gbp-pq over git-dpm (and probably
git-debrebase) is that
Hi,
čt 9. 8. 2018 v 10:16 odesílatel Thomas Goirand napsal:
> Let's say a patch has been applied upstream. In such case, I just do a
> few "quilt push" to check, then I see one is already applied (by running
> "patch --dry-run -P1 patch from the series file, and I'm done. In case of using git w
On 08/08/2018 09:19 PM, Nikolaus Rath wrote:
> On Aug 08 2018, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>> On 08/08/2018 01:38 PM, Nikolaus Rath wrote:
>>> That doesn't make sense to me. git-dpm maintains (and rebases) Debian
>>> patches separately, so upgrading to a new upgrade release can
>>> principally not be an
Ruben Undheim writes:
> There is no nightmare unless there are patch conflicts.
The one case where you could have a "nightmare" is:
1. Maintainer A updates package to latest upstream version.
2. Maintainer A uploads packages to Debian, and it is accepted.
3. Maintainer A forgets to push changes
Nikolaus Rath writes:
> The problems with git-dpm are the implementation and lack of
> maintenance, not the way the Debian changes are managed.
git-dpm requires that you always use its tools. If another maintainer
got confused and used another toolset to upgrade the upstream version,
things cou
On Aug 08 2018, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 08/08/2018 01:38 PM, Nikolaus Rath wrote:
>> That doesn't make sense to me. git-dpm maintains (and rebases) Debian
>> patches separately, so upgrading to a new upgrade release can
>> principally not be any harder than with gbp.
>
> It is a nightmare when
On 08/08/2018 03:55 PM, Ruben Undheim wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> The problem with git-debrebase will be the same as with git-dpm. As soon
>> as you try to upgrade / merge a new upstream release, you dive into a
>> rebase/conflict nightmare.
>
> So in other words, you prefer to solve the same conflicts man
On 08/08/2018 01:38 PM, Nikolaus Rath wrote:
> That doesn't make sense to me. git-dpm maintains (and rebases) Debian
> patches separately, so upgrading to a new upgrade release can
> principally not be any harder than with gbp.
It is a nightmare when patches are conflicting.
> The problems with g
Hi,
pá 3. 8. 2018 v 5:06 odesílatel Ondrej Novy napsal:
> 1. convert git-dpm -> gbp
>
this is done.
--
Best regards
Ondřej Nový
Email: n...@ondrej.org
PGP: 3D98 3C52 EB85 980C 46A5 6090 3573 1255 9D1E 064B
Hi,
> The problem with git-debrebase will be the same as with git-dpm. As soon
> as you try to upgrade / merge a new upstream release, you dive into a
> rebase/conflict nightmare.
So in other words, you prefer to solve the same conflicts manually with
quilt/quilt refresh or get similar but worse
On Aug 08 2018, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 08/04/2018 09:05 AM, Ruben Undheim wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
2/ Ondrej Novy will do a mass-change from git-dpm to gbp on team packages.
Related to this, Piotr will review and amend the team policy if necessary,
as
well as work on the pipeline
On 08/04/2018 09:05 AM, Ruben Undheim wrote:
> Hi,
>
>>> 2/ Ondrej Novy will do a mass-change from git-dpm to gbp on team packages.
>>> Related to this, Piotr will review and amend the team policy if necessary,
>>> as
>>> well as work on the pipeline to make sure the policy gets published from
>>>
Hi,
> > 2/ Ondrej Novy will do a mass-change from git-dpm to gbp on team packages.
> > Related to this, Piotr will review and amend the team policy if necessary,
> > as
> > well as work on the pipeline to make sure the policy gets published from
> > salsa.
Good initiative! The last upload of git-
> 1. convert git-dpm -> gbp
thanks for doing this!
> 2. change default branch to debian/master
please dont. a quick check to the perl team and it seems they dont
require it, so should we? if someone wants to follow DEP-14 then just
do so and document it on debian/README.source (and repoint HEAD)
On 2018-08-03 10:08, W. Martin Borgert wrote:
> On 2018-08-03 08:04, Simon McVittie wrote:
> > There is no upstream/master, upstream/unstable, upstream/stretch or
> > similar in DEP-14, because:
>
> I did not suggest mingling upstream branches with Debian
> versions, which seems to be your impress
On 2018-08-03 08:04, Simon McVittie wrote:
> There is no upstream/master, upstream/unstable, upstream/stretch or
> similar in DEP-14, because:
I did not suggest mingling upstream branches with Debian
versions, which seems to be your impression. I just (maybe
wrongly) thought, that upstream/master
On Fri, 03 Aug 2018 at 08:21:28 +0200, W. Martin Borgert wrote:
> In fact, I thought that "upstream/master" were DEP-14-ish, but
> only "upstream/latest" (for the newest release) is.
Yes. The simple case for DEP-14 is that you are only following one
upstream branch, which is upstream/latest; the m
On 2018-08-03 04:33, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On August 3, 2018 3:51:00 AM UTC, "W. Martin Borgert"
> wrote:
> >How about changing "upstream" to "upstream/latest" (for upstream
> >releases, typically for unstable) and "upstream/master" (for
> >following upstream master, typically for experimental
On August 3, 2018 3:51:00 AM UTC, "W. Martin Borgert"
wrote:
>On 2018-08-03 11:06, Ondrej Novy wrote:
>> 2. change default branch to debian/master
>
>How about changing "upstream" to "upstream/latest" (for upstream
>releases, typically for unstable) and "upstream/master" (for
>following upstre
On 2018-08-03 11:06, Ondrej Novy wrote:
> 2. change default branch to debian/master
How about changing "upstream" to "upstream/latest" (for upstream
releases, typically for unstable) and "upstream/master" (for
following upstream master, typically for experimental)?
Hi guys,
čt 2. 8. 2018 v 23:25 odesílatel Nicolas Dandrimont
napsal:
> 2/ Ondrej Novy will do a mass-change from git-dpm to gbp on team packages.
> Related to this, Piotr will review and amend the team policy if necessary,
> as
> well as work on the pipeline to make sure the policy gets publishe
33 matches
Mail list logo