Hi,
Documentation [1] says to simply bzr push to trunk tip: 'bzr push
lp:ubuntu/tomboy'. Can*anyone* push to ubuntu trunks? If I don't have the
required privilege, what would I do after my merge proposal is approved? I
thought maybe (as with the unity-2d project) once a merge proposal was
When merging your approved branch into your pristine local trunk, the
documentation [1] says to use 'bzr merge-package'. What does this do that 'bzr
merge' does not do?
Cheers,
Kyle
[1]:http://people.canonical.com/~dholbach/packaging-guide/html/udd-uploading.html
--
ubuntu-devel mailing li
Hi,
After building the source package, the documentation [1] says to tag the bzr log with
"bzr tag" (by the way, is the doc missing the commit step?). My question is:
why use 'bzr tag' instead of 'bzr mark-uploaded' (and doesn't 'debcommit -r' also tag
the bzr log?). So I am a bit confused
Hello,
On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 04:11:16PM -0400, Jorge O. Castro wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I am confused as to the definition of the different levels of Ubuntu
> Developers and how that relates to membership in each of the various
> teams (though probably involves overall project membership as we
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 03:32:39PM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On Thursday, July 21, 2011 03:05:04 PM Iain Lane wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 11:40:44AM -0700, Chase Douglas wrote:
> > > On 07/21/2011 11:17 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, July 21, 2011 01:09
On 07/21/2011 11:48 AM, Mackenzie Morgan wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 2:40 PM, Chase Douglas
> wrote:
>> On 07/21/2011 11:17 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>>> All of that is equally true for any upstream work. Should all postgresql
>>> developers be Ubuntu members? If not, then why Unity develo
On Thursday, July 21, 2011 04:22:59 PM Chase Douglas wrote:
> On 07/21/2011 12:32 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > I disagree that a pure upstream membership path is appropriate. It's
> > been a long held project value that "Because you work for Canonical"
> > doesn't get you special treatment in th
On 07/21/2011 12:05 PM, Iain Lane wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 11:40:44AM -0700, Chase Douglas wrote:
>> The point is that I believe there are cases where it makes sense to
>> bestow Ubuntu membership on upstream-only individuals. When we create
>> and enforce policy, we need to keep in mind th
> On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 2:40 PM, Chase Douglas
> wrote:
> > On 07/21/2011 11:17 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> >> All of that is equally true for any upstream work. Should all postgresql
> >> developers be Ubuntu members? If not, then why Unity developers?
> >
> > I believe all upstream develop
On 07/21/2011 12:32 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> I disagree that a pure upstream membership path is appropriate. It's been a
> long held project value that "Because you work for Canonical" doesn't get you
> special treatment in the project (either better or worse). Treating
> Canonical
> spon
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 3:32 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> I do agree that there are times when upstream work can be A factor in
> membership, but unless people are actively involved in Ubuntu, they shouldn't
> be members. I know that will result in some Canonical people feeling like
> they are le
On Thursday, July 21, 2011 03:05:04 PM Iain Lane wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 11:40:44AM -0700, Chase Douglas wrote:
> > On 07/21/2011 11:17 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > > On Thursday, July 21, 2011 01:09:46 PM Chase Douglas wrote:
> > >> On 07/20/2011 04:02 PM, Iain Lane wrote:
>
On Jul 21, 2011, at 09:25 AM, Sebastien Bacher wrote:
>There is a merge request for the new gnome-games version which re-enable
>sudoko and swith to dh_python2, I've reviewed it yesterday and had some
>small comments but that should land to oneiric today or tomorrow
Fantastic! Thanks for updatin
Hello,
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 11:40:44AM -0700, Chase Douglas wrote:
> On 07/21/2011 11:17 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > On Thursday, July 21, 2011 01:09:46 PM Chase Douglas wrote:
> >> On 07/20/2011 04:02 PM, Iain Lane wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 06:16:45PM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote
On Thursday, July 21, 2011 02:40:44 PM Chase Douglas wrote:
> On 07/21/2011 11:17 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > On Thursday, July 21, 2011 01:09:46 PM Chase Douglas wrote:
> >> On 07/20/2011 04:02 PM, Iain Lane wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 06:16:45PM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 2:40 PM, Chase Douglas
wrote:
> On 07/21/2011 11:17 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>> All of that is equally true for any upstream work. Should all postgresql
>> developers be Ubuntu members? If not, then why Unity developers?
>
> I believe all upstream developers of software
On 07/21/2011 11:17 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On Thursday, July 21, 2011 01:09:46 PM Chase Douglas wrote:
>> On 07/20/2011 04:02 PM, Iain Lane wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 06:16:45PM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
On Wednesday, July 20, 2011 05:43:23 PM Mackenzie Morgan wrote:
> [.
On Thursday, July 21, 2011 01:09:46 PM Chase Douglas wrote:
> On 07/20/2011 04:02 PM, Iain Lane wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 06:16:45PM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, July 20, 2011 05:43:23 PM Mackenzie Morgan wrote:
> >>> [...] And then I guess you could add "should
> >>> C
On 07/20/2011 04:02 PM, Iain Lane wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 06:16:45PM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>> On Wednesday, July 20, 2011 05:43:23 PM Mackenzie Morgan wrote:
>>> [...] And then I guess you could add "should
>>> Canonical-sponsored upstream projects be treated differently than
>>> o
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
Every Thursday at 15:00 UTC.
We'll be having the usual IRC meeting on #ubuntu-meeting, on
Thursday 2011-07-21 at 15:00 UTC.
The meeting agenda is available here:
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MobileTeam/Meeting/2011/20110721
The me
On mer., 2011-07-20 at 19:39 -0400, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> I'm a little unsure what to do here. It doesn't make any sense for me
> to
> convert the package if the only binary that cares is disabled, and
> besides, I
> wouldn't have a good way of testing the change.
Hey Barry,
There is a merge re
21 matches
Mail list logo
