On Thu, 09 Sep 2010 12:27:49 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> > What do we need to do to push on with this? Do I need to raise a
> > formal request to have 3.20 removed from testing?
> Gregor's mail implied that removal hadn't been decided upon as the final
> resolution, so I was waiting for co
On Thu, September 9, 2010 11:45, Nicholas Bamber wrote:
> What do we need to do to push on with this? Do I need to raise a
> formal request to have 3.20 removed from testing?
Gregor's mail implied that removal hadn't been decided upon as the final
resolution, so I was waiting for confirmation.
On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 11:45:51 +0100, Nicholas Bamber wrote:
> Adam,
>What do we need to do to push on with this? Do I need to raise a
> formal request to have 3.20 removed from testing?
>
Removal hint added.
Cheers,
Julien
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Adam,
What do we need to do to push on with this? Do I need to raise a
formal request to have 3.20 removed from testing?
Adam D. Barratt wrote:
On Tue, 2010-09-07 at 18:53 +0200, gregor herrmann wrote:
Ideas so far:
1) reupload 3.17 (with an epoch or something)
2) create a 3.20 + patch
On Tue, 2010-09-07 at 18:53 +0200, gregor herrmann wrote:
> Ideas so far:
> 1) reupload 3.17 (with an epoch or something)
> 2) create a 3.20 + patch version (risky and ugly)
> 3) upload 3.22 (huge diff)
>
> Another simpler way that came to my mind might be:
> * Remove libtest-harness-perl 3.20-1 f
On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 16:13:46 +0100, Nicholas Bamber wrote:
> Adam,
>My conclusion is that in test the package should be rolled back
> to 3.17. Do you agree and if not why not?
>
>My reasoning is that attempting to do a patch is the most risky
> action since it would require unwinding most
6 matches
Mail list logo
