Hello,
On Wed 06 Nov 2019 at 11:10AM -05, Sam Hartman wrote:
> * If you were involved enough that you can read the summary and say
> "Yeah, that's more or less what happened," please please do that. (If
> you think I got something wrong in the summary, then please say that too)
I read almost
TL;DR: I'd feel a lot more comfortable if a couple of people would
explicitly review wether I correctly captured the discussion in the
summary.
So, we've received a number of comments on aspects of the discussion.
That plus the original discussion leads me to believe we really are
interested in
On 11/5/19 9:51 PM, Nicholas D Steeves wrote:
> Richard Laager writes:
>> I'd love to see more information about a recommended branch
>> structure. FWIW, I've been using branches named for each release
>> (e.g. "sid" is the default, but I also have "buster" for a (proposed)
>> stable update, will
Richard Laager writes:
> This all looks very good.
>
> Presumably the repository / Salsa project name should match the source
> package name? If so, that might be good to note, at least as the
> default.
>
I'm curious what other people think about this point, because it could
cause a lot of chur
Sam Hartman writes:
> General Recommendation
> ==
> [...]
> You should document the branch format (such as patches unapplied (gbp
> pq)) that your repository uses. Best practice for documenting this is
> still evolving. The best current option is to document your branch
> fo
This all looks very good.
Presumably the repository / Salsa project name should match the source package
name? If so, that might be good to note, at least as the default.
I'd love to see more information about a recommended branch structure. FWIW,
I've been using branches named for each release
Sam Hartman dixit:
>depend on non-free software. Github is a common example of a web
>service that uses non-free software.
So is Salsa. It does not use the packaged version of GitLab,
which is in a sorry state anyway, and not suitable for a stable
release, but the proprietary “open core” versioi
On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 09:58:00PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
> I think we have about two weeks left in the review period.
> Just as a reminder we do need comments.
> Even if people generally agree, we do need at least a few comments to
> that effect.
I like the current proposal for a default sugg
I think we have about two weeks left in the review period.
Just as a reminder we do need comments.
Even if people generally agree, we do need at least a few comments to
that effect.
Hi Sam & Debianistas,
this is far TLDR for me. That is not meant as a critique, but as a
feedback so you have a data point from some random Debianer's available
CPU resources.
(in general I'm fine to declare best practices for whatever issue so
that people can orient themselves on where to head t
TL;DR: These are only guidelines. You're free to ignore them. So I
think the issue you bring up isn't a big deal in this case.
In more detail:
> "Theodore" == Theodore Y Ts'o writes:
Theodore> One thing that is been left unclear is what does it mean
Theodore> to "use salsa"?
Us
One thing that is been left unclear is what does it mean to "use
salsa"? For example, the e2fsprogs git repository is hosted at
multiple locations:
* https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/fs/ext2/e2fsprogs.git
* https://github.com/tytso/e2fsprogs.git
* https://git.code.sf.net/p/e2fsprogs/code
*
On Wed, 09 Oct 2019 12:40:12 -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
> > "gregor" == gregor herrmann writes:
>
> >> General Recommendation ==
>
> This entire section effectively only applies to individual packages that
> are not in a team.
>
> Would "When there is no Team to use"
> "gregor" == gregor herrmann writes:
>> General Recommendation ==
This entire section effectively only applies to individual packages that
are not in a team.
Would "When there is no Team to use" or similar be a better headline
and address your concern?
>> This r
On Mon, 07 Oct 2019 21:22:46 -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
> Ansgar argued that documenting the branch format is unnecessary given
> all the work you need to do to contribute to a package. Several
> disagreed arguing that it helped them do their work.
I have an idea where Ansgar might be coming from
On Tue, 08 Oct 2019, Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 09:22:46PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
> > [...] as a last opportunity for
> > others to comment.
>
> what's the deadline to grok this 20k and respond?
It's in the subject: [comments by 11/05/2019]
November 5th.
Cheers,
--
Raph
On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 09:22:46PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
> [...] as a last opportunity for
> others to comment.
what's the deadline to grok this 20k and respond?
--
cheers,
Holger
---
holger
17 matches
Mail list logo
