Le Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 07:58:51PM +0100, Guillem Jover a écrit :
>
> If the intention is for this to possibly be adopted by upstreams
> themselves so that they can maintain and ship them in their releases,
> then the current format does not seem appropriate when there are
> existing proposals aro
Le Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 02:24:32PM +0100, Guillem Jover a écrit :
>
> Although the more I think about it, given the context, the more I get
> the impression that this data might not belong in the package anyway,
> because most of the things it describes are more or less independent
> of the source
Hi Guillem and Russ,
indeed when exploring the use of debian/upstream, we went through the steps you
discussed in this thread.
Fisrst, I proposed to make equivalent the following entry:
Foo:
Bar: baz
and
Foo-Bar: baz
It turned out to generate confusion. More importantly, in the
On Fri, 2013-01-25 at 11:46:14 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> The difficulty with the deb822 format is that it doesn't have any concept
> of nested structure, so if you have a sequence of references and each of
> them has multiple key/value pairs, such as:
>
> "references": [
> { "author": "Name
Package: qa.debian.org
Severity: minor
User: qa.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: udd
The UDD bugs view uses "ignore marked as done" for some of its view.
Particularly, the "Bug squasher view". I fear that "marked as done"
is a poor choice, because it filters out "fixed (only) in
experimen
Hi Rodolfo,
On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 12:34:58PM +0100, "Rodolfo García Peñas (kix)" wrote:
> Some days ago I uploaded a new version of wmaker (0.95.4-1) package [1] to
> experimental.
> [1] http://packages.qa.debian.org/w/wmaker.html
>
> The PTS web interface shows this package in the "patch-track
6 matches
Mail list logo
