On Thursday, October 06, 2011 10:03:26 AM Matthias Klose wrote:
> On 10/05/2011 10:47 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > On Wednesday, October 05, 2011 09:30:22 PM Sebastien Bacher wrote:
> >> To take an example I think porting universe GNOME2 applets to GNOME3
> >> wouldn't be a good use of our time,
On Thursday, October 06, 2011 03:27:13 PM Colin Watson wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 06, 2011 at 04:00:55PM +0200, Sebastien Bacher wrote:
> > Le jeudi 06 octobre 2011 à 13:28 +0100, Iain Lane a écrit :
> > > You might not ever hear about it, but every time something is
> > > removed you are potentially let
On Thu, Oct 06, 2011 at 04:00:55PM +0200, Sebastien Bacher wrote:
> Le jeudi 06 octobre 2011 à 13:28 +0100, Iain Lane a écrit :
> > You might not ever hear about it, but every time something is
> > removed you are potentially letting people down.
>
> Right, but every time an annoying but in a sof
Le jeudi 06 octobre 2011 à 13:28 +0100, Iain Lane a écrit :
> You
> might not ever hear about it, but every time something is removed you
> are potentially letting people down.
Right, but every time an annoying but in a software that 90% of our
users run is not fixed because the time has been spe
Hello,
On Wed, Oct 05, 2011 at 09:30:22PM +0200, Sebastien Bacher wrote:
> Le mercredi 05 octobre 2011 à 16:08 +0200, Matthias Klose a écrit :
> >
> > During the oneiric development cycle we had syncs of library packages
> > from
> > experimental, introducing new sonames, and changing APIs in a w
Hello,
On Wed, Oct 05, 2011 at 05:21:05PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 05, 2011 at 04:17:43PM +0100, Iain Lane wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 05, 2011 at 03:55:54PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> > > […]
> > > > All three cases have in common that the packages were left alone for
> > > > month
On 10/05/2011 10:47 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 05, 2011 09:30:22 PM Sebastien Bacher wrote:
>> To take an example I think porting universe GNOME2 applets to GNOME3
>> wouldn't be a good use of our time, we better spend the resources we
>> have making sure our current desktop
On Wed, Oct 05, 2011 at 04:17:43PM +0100, Iain Lane wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 05, 2011 at 03:55:54PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> > […]
> > > All three cases have in common that the packages were left alone for
> > > months. The third example could have been avoided if we could check
> > > build depende
Am Mittwoch, den 05.10.2011, 14:35 -0400 schrieb Barry Warsaw:
> On Oct 05, 2011, at 07:07 PM, Stefano Rivera wrote:
>
> >The sponsors not requesting testing and a transition effort commitment
> >is something I've noticed too. I see transition sync requests that I
> >don't look at immediately beca
... or LP could talk to the tracker via a web API :P
-Rob
--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
On Wed, 2011-10-05 at 16:08 +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
>
> - Get approval for a library sync from experimental, listing
>the rdepends, API changes, and estimate the effort to
>complete this library transition.
Being involved in a small part of the cleanup, I would agree. I think
this o
2011/10/5 Colin Watson :
> I don't want to add extra archive-admin checking to the sync process;
> firstly, we're moving towards self-service syncs anyway, and secondly,
> as the libav example shows, syncs aren't really special here.
I agree that this shouldn't be an archive-admin job. However, du
On Wednesday, October 05, 2011 09:30:22 PM Sebastien Bacher wrote:
> Le mercredi 05 octobre 2011 à 16:08 +0200, Matthias Klose a écrit :
> > During the oneiric development cycle we had syncs of library packages
> > from
> > experimental, introducing new sonames, and changing APIs in a way that
> >
2011/10/5 Sebastien Bacher :
> Le mercredi 05 octobre 2011 à 16:08 +0200, Matthias Klose a écrit :
>> During the oneiric development cycle we had syncs of library packages
>> from experimental, introducing new sonames, and changing APIs in a way that
>> other
> The issue is not really specific to e
Le mercredi 05 octobre 2011 à 16:08 +0200, Matthias Klose a écrit :
>
> During the oneiric development cycle we had syncs of library packages
> from
> experimental, introducing new sonames, and changing APIs in a way that
> other
Hi,
The issue is not really specific to experimental, that could
Hi Barry (2011.10.05_20:35:43_+0200)
> Maybe we need to find ways to flag such potentially troublesome syncs early in
> the process, so that it's more clear to the developer and/or sponsor.
I feel that it should be obvious, if we are actually making any effort
to review the sync, beyond "does it b
On Oct 05, 2011, at 07:07 PM, Stefano Rivera wrote:
>The sponsors not requesting testing and a transition effort commitment
>is something I've noticed too. I see transition sync requests that I
>don't look at immediately because they'll need a fair amount of review,
>and 10 mins later someone has
On Wed, Oct 05, 2011 at 07:07:03PM +0200, Stefano Rivera wrote:
> Hi Scott (2011.10.05_18:23:38_+0200)
> > If it's not clear that developers are responsible for this, then we
> > ought to communicate this better (and I include if you sponsor such
> > an upload/sync then I think you are on the hook
Hi Scott (2011.10.05_18:23:38_+0200)
> When I started a library transition I've always felt it was my job to drive it
> to closure.
That's certainly what I've always seen people say when asked how
transitions were managed in Ubuntu.
> If it's not clear that developers are responsible for this, t
On Wednesday, October 05, 2011 04:17:43 PM Iain Lane wrote:
> Hiya,
>
> On Wed, Oct 05, 2011 at 03:55:54PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> > […]
> >
> > > All three cases have in common that the packages were left alone for
> > > months. The third example could have been avoided if we could check
>
Hiya,
On Wed, Oct 05, 2011 at 03:55:54PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> […]
> > All three cases have in common that the packages were left alone for
> > months. The third example could have been avoided if we could check
> > build dependencies when syncing, and rejecting the sync when the
> > b-d's
On Wed, Oct 05, 2011 at 04:08:31PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> During the oneiric development cycle we had syncs of library packages from
> experimental, introducing new sonames, and changing APIs in a way that other
> packages need to be ported to the new API, or if the port isn't trivial, need
During the oneiric development cycle we had syncs of library packages from
experimental, introducing new sonames, and changing APIs in a way that other
packages need to be ported to the new API, or if the port isn't trivial, need to
be removed at the end of the cycle. This doesn't add much benefit
23 matches
Mail list logo
