Hah...document a distribution's bugs in a wiki page is one funny idea
that Knoppix used at the time I still used it, about a year ago. And it
was one major reason I didn't wait to switch to Debian. It can be
considered for tracking RC issues, but Roger still has a point that all
bug reports may
On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 02:45:21PM +0100, Simon Huggins wrote:
>...
> You're a native German speaker right Adrian? Perhaps you could help
> Debian instead by pointing out the journalist's mistake(s).
>...
OK, I can try to send them a message that Debian developers have asked
me to point them to
On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 10:57:44AM +0200, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> > It's not Steve's, or any other RM's fault if the media can't read in
> > context! If a media organization wishes to post articles, they should
> > only do that if they have read "offici
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> It's not Steve's, or any other RM's fault if the media can't read in
> context! If a media organization wishes to post articles, they should
> only do that if they have read "official" sources, using the "real"
> English language, reporting what the sour
On 02/06/05, Thaddeus H. Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Steve Langasek:
>
> > I challenge anyone to do volunteer release management
> > for a project with Debian's size and complexity ...
>
> No. After seeing what Steve does, I'd sooner volunteer
> to spar with Darth Maul than to manage a re
Steve Langasek:
> I challenge anyone to do volunteer release management
> for a project with Debian's size and complexity ...
No. After seeing what Steve does, I'd sooner volunteer
to spar with Darth Maul than to manage a release for a
project with Debian's size and complexity.
Sarge has as man
On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 02:56:47PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> The release team has said in announcements before the second announced
> release date for sarge that the whole release schedule was based on
> the installer schedule.
> For a casual reader of d-d-a it might not be obvious that this has
On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 02:27:04PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 01:02:28PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 02:58:21AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > Anyone who can't distinguish between an "officially announced release
> > > date"
> > > and a pr
On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 01:02:28PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 02:58:21AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Anyone who can't distinguish between an "officially announced release date"
> > and a projected target release date isn't worth wasting my breath on.
>
> It seems you
On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 02:58:21AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 12:27:08AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>...
> > Why are there always extremely aggressive timelines (with at least three
> > publically announced release dates for sarge already passed) instead of
> > making e
> I remember times when there where two weeks test cycles where the whole
> thing was frozen with zero changes for at about a week, and if any
> serious problems were found they were fixed and then there was the next
> test cycle.
>
> Why is there now always such a hurry to get everything out w
On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 12:27:08AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 04:29:31AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On the contrary, I found your answer reasonably satisfactory, and as a
> > result had postponed replying to you in favor of dealing with more directly
> > pressing rele
On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 04:29:31AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Mon, May 30, 2005 at 12:59:26PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > Since it seems noone of the release team bothered to pay this part of
> > the price for the testing release process, I'm sometimes using one or
> > two spare hours to
On Mon, May 30, 2005 at 12:59:26PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> Since it seems noone of the release team bothered to pay this part of
> the price for the testing release process, I'm sometimes using one or
> two spare hours to go a bit through update_excuses and report half a
> dozen of such issu
On Mon, May 30, 2005 at 10:21:45AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Roger Leigh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > That's still requiring /manual intervention/, and lying about the true
> > state of the bug to the BTS. Ideally the BTS should understand that the
> > bug was closed by a particular versi
On Mon, May 30, 2005 at 06:36:42PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 01:40:33AM +1000, Paul TBBle Hampson wrote:
> > Of course, "voila" may actually take a significant amount of time... but
> > could
> > it be slower than the two hours it takes a human to do it?
> It seems you
On Mon, May 30, 2005 at 06:02:52PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
>
> That's still requiring /manual intervention/, and lying about the true
> state of the bug to the BTS. Ideally the BTS should understand that
> the bug was closed by a particular version of the package (the one
> which had Closes: in
On Mon, May 30, 2005 at 10:21:45AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Roger Leigh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > That's still requiring /manual intervention/, and lying about the true
> > state of the bug to the BTS. Ideally the BTS should understand that the
> > bug was closed by a particular version
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> or, you could always not close it in your changelog, and update the
> bug accordingly.
However last time I asked for this, it was deprecated:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/05/msg00915.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/05/msg0091
Roger Leigh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> That's still requiring /manual intervention/, and lying about the true
> state of the bug to the BTS. Ideally the BTS should understand that the
> bug was closed by a particular version of the package (the one which had
> Closes: in it), and the bug is st
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
sean finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> hi,
>
> On Mon, May 30, 2005 at 04:07:50PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
>> The BTS does not currently support this. For example, if I upload a
>> fix to unstable, I have to manually reopen it and tag it sarge.
>
On Mon, May 30, 2005 at 05:53:31PM +0200, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
>
> For http://www.wolffelaar.nl/~sarge, there are already diffs in a
> database that are exactly the diffs between sarge & sid changelogs.
> Anyway, this problem is already long time known, and the solution will
> be implement
On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 01:40:33AM +1000, Paul TBBle Hampson wrote:
> On Mon, May 30, 2005 at 01:19:48PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Mon, May 30, 2005 at 11:04:51PM +1200, Nigel Jones wrote:
>
> > > http://bts.turmzimmer.net/details.php?ignore=sid&ignsec=on&fullcomment=on&new=7
> > >
> > > t
On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 01:40:33AM +1000, Paul TBBle Hampson wrote:
> On Mon, May 30, 2005 at 01:19:48PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Mon, May 30, 2005 at 11:04:51PM +1200, Nigel Jones wrote:
>
> > > http://bts.turmzimmer.net/details.php?ignore=sid&ignsec=on&fullcomment=on&new=7
> > >
> > > t
On Mon, May 30, 2005 at 01:19:48PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Mon, May 30, 2005 at 11:04:51PM +1200, Nigel Jones wrote:
> > http://bts.turmzimmer.net/details.php?ignore=sid&ignsec=on&fullcomment=on&new=7
> >
> > thats a decent unoffical count...
> ... that doesn't (and can't) in any way addr
hi,
On Mon, May 30, 2005 at 04:07:50PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> The BTS does not currently support this. For example, if I upload a
> fix to unstable, I have to manually reopen it and tag it sarge.
or, you could always not close it in your changelog, and update the
bug accordingly.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
"Roberto C. Sanchez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, May 30, 2005 at 12:59:26PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>>
>> Finding these issues is one of the prices for freezing testing
>> instead of unstable [1].
>
> CMIIW, but isn't unstable a place wh
On Mon, May 30, 2005 at 11:04:51PM +1200, Nigel Jones wrote:
> http://bts.turmzimmer.net/details.php?ignore=sid&ignsec=on&fullcomment=on&new=7
>
> thats a decent unoffical count...
... that doesn't (and can't) in any way address the problem I described
in my email.
> N Jones
cu
Adrian
--
On Mon, May 30, 2005 at 12:59:26PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>
> Finding these issues is one of the prices for freezing testing
> instead of unstable [1].
>
CMIIW, but isn't unstable a place where architectures can be out of
sync? To get into a testing, a package has to pass the cooling off
pe
http://bts.turmzimmer.net/details.php?ignore=sid&ignsec=on&fullcomment=on&new=7
thats a decent unoffical count...
On 30/05/05, Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, May 27, 2005 at 11:57:52PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> >...
> > Timeline
> >
> >...
> > 1 June 2005
> > ~1
On Fri, May 27, 2005 at 11:57:52PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
>...
> Timeline
>
>...
> 1 June 2005
> ~15 RC bugs (excluding security bugs)
> 0 RC bugs not tagged "sarge"
>...
How do you measure RC bugs?
If you only look at the output of the BTS - that's horribly wrong.
Why?
Becau
31 matches
Mail list logo
