On 2021-04-09 21:02 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On 09/04/21 at 19:49 +0200, Sven Joachim wrote:
>> The X Strike Force is still sticking to format 1.0, with one of the main
>> reasons being that it makes it easier to cherry-pick one or several
>> upstream commits. In the 3.0 format you have to
On 09/04/21 at 19:49 +0200, Sven Joachim wrote:
> The X Strike Force is still sticking to format 1.0, with one of the main
> reasons being that it makes it easier to cherry-pick one or several
> upstream commits. In the 3.0 format you have to create a separate patch
> and later remove it when
On Thu, Apr 08, 2021 at 06:53:12PM +0200, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> > right, so the severity of these bugs should be wishlist or maybe normal,
> > but I don't think important would be justified, and serious seriously not.
> Yes, totally. I don't think anybody ever talked about the severity of
> any
On 2021-04-08 18:02 +0200, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 08, 2021 at 03:53:06PM +, Holger Levsen wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 08, 2021 at 02:58:14PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
>> > 166 1.0, quilt
>>
>> I don't see what's wrong with these.
>
> Nothing *wrong* as the hard meaning of that
On Thu, Apr 08, 2021 at 04:15:45PM +, Holger Levsen wrote:
> > IMHO, they aren't "wrong" or "inherently bad", but I believe keeping
> > them that way is more of technical debt than anything else.
>
> right, so the severity of these bugs should be wishlist or maybe normal,
> but I don't think
On Thu, Apr 08, 2021 at 06:02:35PM +0200, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> Nothing *wrong* as the hard meaning of that word.
> But:
> * They carry the usual set of downsides of 1.0 vs 3.0, like:
>- no support for .tar.(bz2|xz|…)
>- no support for multi tarballs
those don't seem to be relevant for
On Thu, Apr 08, 2021 at 03:53:06PM +, Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 08, 2021 at 02:58:14PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > 166 1.0, quilt
>
> I don't see what's wrong with these.
Nothing *wrong* as the hard meaning of that word.
But:
* They carry the usual set of downsides of 1.0
On Thu, Apr 08, 2021 at 02:58:14PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> 166 1.0, quilt
I don't see what's wrong with these.
--
cheers,
Holger
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ PGP fingerprint: B8BF 5413 7B09 D35C F026 FE9D 091A B856
On Thu, Apr 08, 2021 at 02:58:14PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On 08/04/21 at 09:06 +0200, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> > Also dpatch. And also 1.0+quilt (ugh). !
>
> So the breakdown for testing is:
>
> 27 1.0, dpatch
I'll take upon myself to get rid of this set RSN.
> 166 1.0, quilt
On 08/04/21 at 09:06 +0200, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> > - source format 1.0 with direct changes in .diff.gz (no patch system)
>
> Also dpatch. And also 1.0+quilt (ugh). !
So the breakdown for testing is:
27 1.0, dpatch
166 1.0, quilt
374 1.0, no changes
395 1.0, direct changes
10 matches
Mail list logo
