Hi,
On Donnerstag, 28. April 2011, Joey Hess wrote:
> Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > There are other possible changes but I want to discuss them separately
> > because even without those changes, the testing without freeze is a
> > worthwhile goal in itself.
[...]
> I think these are interesting ideas
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Arnaud Fontaine
* Package name: python-initgroups
Version : 2.13.0
Upstream Author : Zope Corporation and Contributors
* URL : http://pypi.python.org/pypi/initgroups
* License : ZPL-2.1
Programming Lang: Python
Descr
* Lucas Nussbaum [110428 22:06]:
> Eh? How do you fix stuff in the next release if you don't make uploads?
> I'm not saying that the number of uploads should stay the same: it's
> normal to see it going down during freezes, since there are less things
> to change. However, if we think that DDs par
On 29/04/11 at 10:23 +0200, Holger Levsen wrote:
> 2. In the past there used to be two rather opposites use-cases of testing:
> some (luckely more than just the release team) see it as a tool to develop
> stable. Others see it (mostly) as a usable distribution.
> I'm unconvinced that splitting te
On 29/04/11 at 10:33 +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> * Lucas Nussbaum [110428 22:06]:
> > So, we are losing a large number of contributors (> 20%) during freezes. And
> > it's also possible that some of them don't come back (looking at the months
> > following freezes, it takes some time to reach
* Lucas Nussbaum [110429 10:51]:
> I think that you misunderstood my data. It's the number of **distinct**
> (different) **uploaders**. If you uploaded just one package during the
> freeze period, then you are not in the 20%.
You did not give numbers of uploaders in the freeze time, but by
month.
On 29/04/11 at 11:00 +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> * Lucas Nussbaum [110429 10:51]:
> > I think that you misunderstood my data. It's the number of **distinct**
> > (different) **uploaders**. If you uploaded just one package during the
> > freeze period, then you are not in the 20%.
>
> You did
* Lucas Nussbaum [110429 11:17]:
> On 29/04/11 at 11:00 +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> > * Lucas Nussbaum [110429 10:51]:
> > > I think that you misunderstood my data. It's the number of **distinct**
> > > (different) **uploaders**. If you uploaded just one package during the
> > > freeze perio
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 04:52:29PM +0200, Mehdi Dogguy wrote:
> 2) During the freeze, you're killing an important step in the Release
> process which is "the testing". Packages that move from sid to testing are
> tested by a huge user base (sid users), and then double-tested by testing
> users.
I
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 05:34:50PM +0200, Mehdi Dogguy wrote:
> > See
> > http://raphaelhertzog.com/2011/04/28/no-freeze-of-debian-development-what-does-it-entail/
> > for a more detailed answer and related suggestions to limit this problem.
>
> I'm still reading and thinking… so, don't have an a
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 10:55:01PM +, Philipp Kern wrote:
> On 2011-04-28, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > But I don't plan to work on any of those if the project does not agree to
> > promote testing to something that can be advertised as usable by end-users
> > and as something that we strive to
On 03/31/2011 09:25 AM, Vincent Danjean wrote:
> Martin F. Krafft started to implement a replacement of ifupdown that
> is better designed. But, due to lack of manpower I think, this project
> did not finish. See this archives of netconf-de...@lists.alioth.debian.org
> for more info.
Instead of M
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 18:48, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
> But that we do want to prevent a broken APT -- when using the common
> "dpkg -i ...; apt-get install -f" idiom (where ... is APT) -- certainly
> is an argument.
Let me try to rephrase that:
The only strong positive argument for the chang
On 29/04/2011 14:21, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 10:55:01PM +, Philipp Kern wrote:
>> On 2011-04-28, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
>>> But I don't plan to work on any of those if the project does not agree to
>>> promote testing to something that can be advertised as usable by
Hi,
On Fri, 29 Apr 2011, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 05:34:50PM +0200, Mehdi Dogguy wrote:
> > I'm still reading and thinking… so, don't have an answer yet. But, it
> > you'd like me to read your ideas, you're going to put some efforts and
> > post them here, instead of poi
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Fabrizio Regalli
Package name: sparkline-php
Version : 0.2
Upstream Author : James Byers
URL : http://sparkline.org/
License : GPL
Programming Lang: php
Description : A sparkline graphing library for php
Bernd Zeimetz (29/04/2011):
> Instead of Martin's project you might want to look into ipcfg by
> Wouter Verhelst, which is in experimental already.
You may want not to. Last I checked (#dd yesterday, but not quoting
without permission), the idea was to scratch everything and start
over.
Mraw,
Ki
On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 02:44:53PM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> On 03/31/2011 09:25 AM, Vincent Danjean wrote:
>
> > Martin F. Krafft started to implement a replacement of ifupdown that
> > is better designed. But, due to lack of manpower I think, this project
> > did not finish. See this archive
[ Note that we decided to include the debian-devel list in our reply, as
this issue seems to have already found a wider audience, which we want
to invite to this discussion too. Please stay ontopic and away from
ranting about Ubuntu/Canonical/Whatever, gains nothing for anyone, but
help to
Hi,
sorry that I'm late to this party and that this mail is mostly an AOL...
On Mittwoch, 30. März 2011, Luk Claes wrote:
> # package quality
> Advocate: Holger Levsen and Luk Claes
> State: confirmed
> Wiki: http://wiki.debian.org/ReleaseGoals/PackagesQuality
>
> This is a never ending go
On Freitag, 29. April 2011, Holger Levsen wrote:
> 29445 successful and 72 failed logs plus 526 packages not being tested
> (which is what we have today) is a reasonable state IMO.
(reasonable yes, but we definitly can do better!)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.or
On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 18:44:39 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow
wrote:
> Stephen Kitt writes:
> > So if I understand things correctly that would mean using /usr/lib/win32
> > and /usr/lib/win64, regardless of the binutils/gcc triplet (which is fine
> > as
>
> If that is what dpkg-architecture outputs.
On Sun, 24 Apr 2011 22:46:40 +0100, Wookey wrote:
> +++ Stephen Kitt [2011-04-24 19:14 +0200]:
> > > So I would be opposed to making such a change in policy for the time
> > > being; I think cross-compilers should stick with the traditional
> > > cross-compiler directories and stay away from the m
On Sun, 24 Apr 2011 23:46:10 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Sun, 2011-04-24 at 22:46 +0100, Wookey wrote:
> [...]
> > I do think that getting the 'win32' arch name and triplet defined in
> > dpkg-architecture is stage 1 for you. I thought we'd already done that
> > years ago, when this last came
* sean finney (sean...@debian.org) [110427 19:54]:
> Hi Mehdi,
>
> On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 05:58:46PM +0200, Mehdi Dogguy wrote:
> > Funny… reading your recent blogpost, you seem to not understand yet what
> > you want to put into Rolling (and how). So, how can we comment on
> > something that's n
* Raphael Hertzog (hert...@debian.org) [110428 11:29]:
> On Thu, 28 Apr 2011, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> > We might disagree with the process Raphael is proposing, but my reading
> > of [1] is that he is asking for comments on the *goals* that, in his
> > opinion, "rolling" is supposed to fulfill.
* Raphael Hertzog (hert...@debian.org) [110428 16:26]:
> - reduce the set of architectures required for migration to testing to
> i386/amd64/armel and have buildd of other architectures prioritize
> missing builds in testing over missing builds in unstable
> (freeze should be enough time even
* Raphael Hertzog (hert...@debian.org) [110428 14:55]:
> On Thu, 28 Apr 2011, Mehdi Dogguy wrote:
> > > So your "testing" is essentially the pre-2000 "frozen" distribution [1],
> > > and
> > > your "rolling" is basically the current "testing" without the need to
> > > freeze?
> > > If that's the
* Lucas Nussbaum (lu...@lucas-nussbaum.net) [110428 19:57]:
> On 28/04/11 at 18:04 +0200, Mehdi Dogguy wrote:
> > On 28/04/2011 17:25, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > > On 28/04/11 at 16:52 +0200, Mehdi Dogguy wrote:
> > >>
> > >> 1) At the beginning of the developement cycle, (with the new plan) you
> >
* Lucas Nussbaum (lu...@lucas-nussbaum.net) [110428 20:21]:
> Interestingly, you seem to be confused about RC bugs. ;)
Can you please stop the ad-hominem attacks? Thanks.
Andi
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
* Raphael Hertzog (hert...@debian.org) [110428 22:16]:
> On Thu, 28 Apr 2011, sean finney wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 02:55:31PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > > Good. I just want to point out that "frozen" built on top on rolling
> > > (which is what we're proposing here) is different fr
* Stefano Zacchiroli (z...@debian.org) [110429 14:22]:
> In general we need to promote the reduction of (potential) bottlenecks
> in Debian rather than the contrary. ... and don't get me wrong: I'm very
> well aware that this specific "bottleneck" is a very good feature to
> have for the preparatio
Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On 28/04/11 at 12:05 -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> > And at the same time, having a non-frozen rolling release available
> > during freeze time could easily distract people from working on
> > testing/frozen at all, because a shiny rolling release that they and
> > some users ca
Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> To complement that with even more user testing, I think we should
> consider advertising specific (late) frozen snapshots as
> alpha/beta{1,2,3} development releases. Several other distros are doing
> that and I do believe they have good reasons for doing so, which migh
Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> If the release team is open to try this out, I'm volunteering
> to help implement this (i.e. at the very least managing transitions
> while the rest of the release team is concentrated on patch review for
> finalizing the stable release). I'am also happy to invest some effo
* Ben Hutchings , 2011-04-23, 15:06:
[...]
=== version, strings longer than 30 (unique ones) ===
0.9.15+post20100705+gitb3aa806-2
0.0.0+git20091215.9ec1da8a-2+b2
1.0.0~alpha3~git20090817.r1.349dba6-2
1:2.5.0~alpha4+svn20091009-1+b2
2.1.14+2.6.32.13-201005151340-1
1:2.2cvs20100105-true-dfsg-5+b1
0
Heya,
Raphael, it would be so great to reply to messages in single mails
instead of squeezing (are you release-themed, or what?) all of your
answers into one mail. I'm really tired of chasing a specific answer
From you through the whole thread.
Raphael Hertzog writes:
> But I don't plan to work
37 matches
Mail list logo
