Am 21.11.2010 18:27, schrieb Jesus Cea:
> What is the impact in the buildbot architecture?. Slaves must do
> anything?. At least they need to have mercurial installed, I guess.
>
> What, as a buildslave manager, must I do to ready my server for the
> migration?.
Apart from having Mercurial instal
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
What is the impact in the buildbot architecture?. Slaves must do
anything?. At least they need to have mercurial installed, I guess.
What, as a buildslave manager, must I do to ready my server for the
migration?.
- --
Jesus Cea Avion
On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 2:51 AM, Georg Brandl wrote:
> I'm at it. In fact, I think I will merge both todo.txt and tasks.txt
> into the PEP. It's not more of a burden to update it there, and it's
> more visible to the developer community.
The latest checkin was definitely an improvement (especia
2010/11/19 "Martin v. Löwis" :
>> Maybe I misremembered Martin's suggestion, and he was only talking about
>> security releases.
>
> Technically, I was only talking about 2.5. For each branch, the
> respective release manager should make a decision. For 2.5 and 2.6,
> it's been decided; Benjamin ha
Le vendredi 19 novembre 2010 à 22:35 +0100, "Martin v. Löwis" a écrit :
> > I don't understand all the worry about sys.subversion.
>
> Really? For a security release, there should be *zero* chance that it
> breaks existing applications,
It should have been clear that my message explicitly exclude
Am 19.11.2010 22:35, schrieb "Martin v. Löwis":
>> I don't understand all the worry about sys.subversion.
>
> Really? For a security release, there should be *zero* chance that it
> breaks existing applications, unless the application relies on the
> security bug that has been fixed. By "zero chan
> I don't understand all the worry about sys.subversion.
Really? For a security release, there should be *zero* chance that it
breaks existing applications, unless the application relies on the
security bug that has been fixed. By "zero chance", I mean absolutely
no chance, never. I'm pretty sure
> Maybe I misremembered Martin's suggestion, and he was only talking about
> security releases.
Technically, I was only talking about 2.5. For each branch, the
respective release manager should make a decision. For 2.5 and 2.6,
it's been decided; Benjamin has not yet announced plans how 2.7 and 3.
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 05:50, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 5:43 PM, Georg Brandl wrote:
>> Am 19.11.2010 03:23, schrieb Benjamin Peterson:
>>> 2010/11/18 Jesus Cea :
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 18/11/10 18:32, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
>>>
> I don't understand all the worry about sys.subversion. It's not like
> it's useful to anybody else than us, and I think it should have been
> named sys._subversion instead. There's no point in making API-like
> promises about which DVCS, bug tracker or documentation toolset we use
> for our workf
On Fri, 19 Nov 2010 12:41:58 -0500
Barry Warsaw wrote:
> >Really? I can understand this for security-only branches (commits there will
> >be rare, and equivalent commits to the Mercurial branches can be made by
> >others than the release managers, in order to keep history consistent).
> >
> >But
On Nov 19, 2010, at 06:12 PM, Georg Brandl wrote:
>Am 19.11.2010 15:46, schrieb Barry Warsaw:
>> On Nov 19, 2010, at 11:50 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>>
>>>- date SVN will go read only
>>
>> Please note that svn cannot be made completely read-only. We've already
>> decided that versions already in
Am 19.11.2010 15:46, schrieb Barry Warsaw:
> On Nov 19, 2010, at 11:50 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>
>>- date SVN will go read only
>
> Please note that svn cannot be made completely read-only. We've already
> decided that versions already in maintenance or security-only mode (2.5, 2.6,
> 2.7, 3.1)
Am 19.11.2010 15:36, schrieb "Martin v. Löwis":
>> - date Hg will be available for write access (it should be frozen for
>> a while, to give the folks doing the conversion a chance to make sure
>> buildbot is back up and run, commit emails are working properly, etc)
>
> I would target the build sl
Am 19.11.2010 16:00, schrieb Dirkjan Ochtman:
> On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 15:56, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>> That's enough to make folks like me somewhat nervous as to whether or
>> not we're actually going to have a usable source control system come
>> December 12.
>
> Yes, I've been negligent about up
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 11/19/2010 7:50 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 5:43 PM, Georg Brandl wrote:
>> Am 19.11.2010 03:23, schrieb Benjamin Peterson:
>>> 2010/11/18 Jesus Cea :
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 18/11/
Am 19.11.2010 08:58, schrieb "Martin v. Löwis":
> Am 19.11.2010 03:23, schrieb Benjamin Peterson:
>> 2010/11/18 Jesus Cea :
>>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>
>>> On 18/11/10 18:32, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
In general, I'm *also* concerned about the lack of volunteers th
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 15:56, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> That's enough to make folks like me somewhat nervous as to whether or
> not we're actually going to have a usable source control system come
> December 12.
Yes, I've been negligent about updating the PEP. I'll try do so next
week. Georg, if you
On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 12:46 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Nov 19, 2010, at 11:50 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>
>>- date SVN will go read only
>
> Please note that svn cannot be made completely read-only. We've already
> decided that versions already in maintenance or security-only mode (2.5, 2.6,
>
On Nov 19, 2010, at 11:50 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>- date SVN will go read only
Please note that svn cannot be made completely read-only. We've already
decided that versions already in maintenance or security-only mode (2.5, 2.6,
2.7, 3.1) will get updates and releases only via svn. But only th
> - date Hg will be available for write access (it should be frozen for
> a while, to give the folks doing the conversion a chance to make sure
> buildbot is back up and run, commit emails are working properly, etc)
I would target the build slaves to the Mercurial repository already in
the testing
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 5:43 PM, Georg Brandl wrote:
> Am 19.11.2010 03:23, schrieb Benjamin Peterson:
>> 2010/11/18 Jesus Cea :
>>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>
>>> On 18/11/10 18:32, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
In general, I'm *also* concerned about the lack of volunte
Am 19.11.2010 03:23, schrieb Benjamin Peterson:
> 2010/11/18 Jesus Cea :
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> On 18/11/10 18:32, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
>>> In general, I'm *also* concerned about the lack of volunteers that
>>> are interested in working on the infrastructure.
Am 19.11.2010 03:23, schrieb Benjamin Peterson:
> 2010/11/18 Jesus Cea :
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> On 18/11/10 18:32, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
>>> In general, I'm *also* concerned about the lack of volunteers that
>>> are interested in working on the infrastructure.
2010/11/18 Jesus Cea :
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 18/11/10 18:32, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
>> In general, I'm *also* concerned about the lack of volunteers that
>> are interested in working on the infrastructure. I wish some of the
>> people who stated that they can't
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 18/11/10 18:32, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
> In general, I'm *also* concerned about the lack of volunteers that
> are interested in working on the infrastructure. I wish some of the
> people who stated that they can't wait for the migration to happen
>> Therefore, I'm concerned that I will have to work out all the details
>> on my own, just so that I can produce the b2 binaries (says); this is
>> not something I look forward to.
>
> How much does the binary build process really depend on version control?
> I.e., what would be stopping you from
Am 18.11.2010 18:32, schrieb "Martin v. Löwis":
>>> Alternatively, b1 should be postponed until after the Mercurial
>>> migration is done.
>>
>> I think this "new feature" is not so shocking that it can be used as
>> an argument to hold up the migration. If you have another reason to
>> stop the m
>> Alternatively, b1 should be postponed until after the Mercurial
>> migration is done.
>
> I think this "new feature" is not so shocking that it can be used as
> an argument to hold up the migration. If you have another reason to
> stop the migration please say so; personally I can't wait for it
Am 18.11.2010 17:25, schrieb "Martin v. Löwis":
> Am 17.11.2010 08:18, schrieb Georg Brandl:
>> Am 16.11.2010 19:38, schrieb Jesus Cea:
>>> Is there any updated mercurial schedule?.
>>>
>>> Any impact related with the new 3.2 schedule (three weeks offset)?
>>
>> I've been trying to contact Dirkjan
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 8:25 AM, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
> Am 17.11.2010 08:18, schrieb Georg Brandl:
>> Am 16.11.2010 19:38, schrieb Jesus Cea:
>>> Is there any updated mercurial schedule?.
>>>
>>> Any impact related with the new 3.2 schedule (three weeks offset)?
>>
>> I've been trying to conta
Am 17.11.2010 08:18, schrieb Georg Brandl:
> Am 16.11.2010 19:38, schrieb Jesus Cea:
>> Is there any updated mercurial schedule?.
>>
>> Any impact related with the new 3.2 schedule (three weeks offset)?
>
> I've been trying to contact Dirkjan and ask; generally, I don't
> see much connection to th
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 13:51, Jesus Cea wrote:
> I can't find the mail now, but I remember that months ago the Mercurial
> migration schedule was mid-december. I wonder if there is any update.
I'm still aiming for that date. I've had some problems getting the
test repository together. It's almos
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 17/11/10 08:18, Georg Brandl wrote:
> Am 16.11.2010 19:38, schrieb Jesus Cea:
>> Is there any updated mercurial schedule?.
>>
>> Any impact related with the new 3.2 schedule (three weeks offset)?
>
> I've been trying to contact Dirkjan and ask; gen
Am 16.11.2010 19:38, schrieb Jesus Cea:
> Is there any updated mercurial schedule?.
>
> Any impact related with the new 3.2 schedule (three weeks offset)?
I've been trying to contact Dirkjan and ask; generally, I don't
see much connection to the 3.2 schedule (with the exception that
the final mig
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Is there any updated mercurial schedule?.
Any impact related with the new 3.2 schedule (three weeks offset)?
- --
Jesus Cea Avion _/_/ _/_/_/_/_/_/
j...@jcea.es - http://www.jcea.es/ _/_/_/_/ _/_/_/_
36 matches
Mail list logo
