My idea is that this ISO is just an installer, not a new default
installation for the system.
The actual installation will be the same on both ISOs, where you will be
able to choose which DE you want.
The mini.iso is not what we will be basing our new ISO on. Both ISOs
will be live, with
On Fri, 23 May 2014, Kaj Ailomaa wrote:
I suggest we create this ISO within the week, and try out lubuntu-core.
We will need to make changes to some of our core packages probably, in
order to make it look Ubuntu Studio.
I'll set up the seed files and make sure we get an ISO building ASAP.
I
If you look at this merge proposal, it was disapproved with a suggestion that
it was premature. Despite that, it got released and into the archive anyway.
So what's the point of review?
If the result of a negative review is Oh, we ignored you, we'll override the
disapproval and merge anyway.
2014-05-23 14:41 GMT+02:00 Scott Kitterman ubu...@kitterman.com:
If you look at this merge proposal, it was disapproved with a suggestion that
it was premature. Despite that, it got released and into the archive anyway.
So what's the point of review?
I'm not sure if you noticed the timeline,
On Friday, May 23, 2014 15:47:33 Timo Jyrinki wrote:
2014-05-23 14:41 GMT+02:00 Scott Kitterman ubu...@kitterman.com:
If you look at this merge proposal, it was disapproved with a suggestion
that it was premature. Despite that, it got released and into the
archive anyway.
So what's
Le 23/05/2014 16:35, Scott Kitterman a écrit :
The other thing I didn't know is that CI train uploads bypass the New queue in
Ubuntu. That made my comment irrelevant anyway. This is a bug that REALLY
needs fixing. Since CI train packages are mostly Ubuntu specific (Qt5 is
somewhat unique in
On Friday, May 23, 2014 17:27:12 Didier Roche wrote:
Le 23/05/2014 16:35, Scott Kitterman a écrit :
The other thing I didn't know is that CI train uploads bypass the New
queue in Ubuntu. That made my comment irrelevant anyway. This is a bug
that REALLY needs fixing. Since CI train
Le 23/05/2014 17:34, Scott Kitterman a écrit :
On Friday, May 23, 2014 17:27:12 Didier Roche wrote:
Le 23/05/2014 16:35, Scott Kitterman a écrit :
The other thing I didn't know is that CI train uploads bypass the New
queue in Ubuntu. That made my comment irrelevant anyway. This is a bug
that
Le 23/05/2014 17:37, Didier Roche a écrit :
Le 23/05/2014 17:34, Scott Kitterman a écrit :
On Friday, May 23, 2014 17:27:12 Didier Roche wrote:
Le 23/05/2014 16:35, Scott Kitterman a écrit :
The other thing I didn't know is that CI train uploads bypass the New
queue in Ubuntu. That made my
On Friday, May 23, 2014 17:39:23 Didier Roche wrote:
Le 23/05/2014 17:37, Didier Roche a écrit :
Le 23/05/2014 17:34, Scott Kitterman a écrit :
On Friday, May 23, 2014 17:27:12 Didier Roche wrote:
Le 23/05/2014 16:35, Scott Kitterman a écrit :
The other thing I didn't know is that CI
On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 7:27 PM, Didier Roche didro...@ubuntu.com wrote:
Since CI train packages are mostly Ubuntu specific (Qt5 is
somewhat unique in this regard), I'd suggest those need review in New much
more than the 75% of our packages we get from Debian unmodified that have
already been
On Friday, May 23, 2014 19:54:05 Dmitry Shachnev wrote:
On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 7:27 PM, Didier Roche didro...@ubuntu.com wrote:
Since CI train packages are mostly Ubuntu specific (Qt5 is
somewhat unique in this regard), I'd suggest those need review in New
much
more than the 75% of our
On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 8:01 PM, Scott Kitterman ubu...@kitterman.com wrote:
Particularly since the list of people that can upload to the relevant PPAs is
not constrained to Ubuntu developers.
No, I meant: is it possible to bypass the queue with only relevant
PPAs or with any PPA?
--
Dmitry
On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 12:01:43PM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
On Friday, May 23, 2014 19:54:05 Dmitry Shachnev wrote:
On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 7:27 PM, Didier Roche didro...@ubuntu.com wrote:
Since CI train packages are mostly Ubuntu specific (Qt5 is
somewhat unique in this regard), I'd
On Friday, May 23, 2014 20:14:57 Dmitry Shachnev wrote:
On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 8:01 PM, Scott Kitterman ubu...@kitterman.com
wrote:
Particularly since the list of people that can upload to the relevant PPAs
is not constrained to Ubuntu developers.
No, I meant: is it possible to bypass
On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 08:14:57PM +0400, Dmitry Shachnev wrote:
On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 8:01 PM, Scott Kitterman ubu...@kitterman.com wrote:
Particularly since the list of people that can upload to the relevant PPAs
is
not constrained to Ubuntu developers.
No, I meant: is it possible
On Friday, May 23, 2014 12:23:50 Stéphane Graber wrote:
On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 08:14:57PM +0400, Dmitry Shachnev wrote:
On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 8:01 PM, Scott Kitterman ubu...@kitterman.com
wrote:
Particularly since the list of people that can upload to the relevant
PPAs is not
17 matches
Mail list logo
