Re: Spinach Con at GUADEC
Leave it to me to screw up dates.. even though I check it. The dates are on Tuesday 8/27, not Monday. Sorry about that. On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 10:33 PM Sriram Ramkrishna wrote: > > Just wanted to let all of you know that at GUADEC - on Monday 8/26 we > will be having SpinachCon, if you have a project that you would like > to have user feedback on, this will be an opportunity to have it at > GUADEC! > > You can reach out to Deb Nicholson, (mail me and I'll give you her > email address) I'll be posting this on discourse as well, so you can > answer there. > > Thanks for your time! > sri ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Spinach Con at GUADEC
Just wanted to let all of you know that at GUADEC - on Monday 8/26 we will be having SpinachCon, if you have a project that you would like to have user feedback on, this will be an opportunity to have it at GUADEC! You can reach out to Deb Nicholson, (mail me and I'll give you her email address) I'll be posting this on discourse as well, so you can answer there. Thanks for your time! sri ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Missing releases and state of 3.33.90
Ühel kenal päeval, T, 13.08.2019 kell 23:11, kirjutas Florian Müllner:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 8:24 PM Olav Vitters wrote:
> > Further, gnome-shell 3.33.90 incorporates an gnome-desktop API/ABI
> > (?)
> > change, but it doesn't actually check that gnome-desktop is new
> > enough.
>
> That is because gnome-desktop is only required at runtime (via
> gobject-introspection) and not at build time.
>
> If it is an issue, we can either
> - add a version check to the build dependency in mutter
> - start to add runtime checks á la
> "imports.package.requireSymbol('GnomeDesktop', '3.0',
> 'BGSlideShow.file');"
Perhaps at least a list of dependencies in README? Even if that says
"The build system checks for dependencies needed at build time, please
look there for those. Additionally at runtime the following
dependencies are used:
* >=gnome-desktop-3.33.3
* >=foo-bar-4 (optional)"
Mart
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Missing releases and state of 3.33.90
hey, On Wed, Aug 14, 2019, 4:23 PM Olav Vitters wrote: > Ah!! I thought it was intentional (more testing needed or something) as > usually release team would chase as well. I didn't expect it just to be > forgotten, else I would not have used d-d-l. Sorry for possibly being > impolite. > it wasn't forgotton, but it was very late and i wasnt giving it the priority i should have... so your email was good.. Ray > > ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Missing releases and state of 3.33.90
On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 02:40:19PM -0400, Ray Strode via desktop-devel-list wrote: > On Tue, Aug 13, 2019, 2:24 PM Olav Vitters wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > I had various issues packaging GNOME 3.33.90. It seems that there's > > various modules which haven't made a release, e.g.: > > - no gdm 3.33.90 > > - no gnome-session 3.33.90 > > > sorry, will do them. Ah!! I thought it was intentional (more testing needed or something) as usually release team would chase as well. I didn't expect it just to be forgotten, else I would not have used d-d-l. Sorry for possibly being impolite. Many thanks. -- Regards, Olav ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Proposal: earlier tarball deadlines
Hi, Le mercredi 14 août 2019, a écrit : > > Please, if you have any concerns, let us know. Also let us know if you > have a preference between Friday and Saturday. Remember that the deadline > still occurs at 23:59 UTC on the day specified. > I’d clearly prefer on Saturday than on Friday. Releasing needs a clear mind, something that I do not all the time have on Friday night (or any other day before). Regards, Arnaud -- Arnaud Bonatti téléphone : +33(0)6 50 57 23 49 courriel : arnaud.bona...@gmail.com ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Proposal: earlier tarball deadlines
Hi, I'd like to propose moving tarball deadlines for the 3.36 cycle one business day earlier, from Mondays to Fridays, while leaving the overall release deadline on Wednesday. That way, we can have the weekend for trying to build the release. This will allow release team more time to resolve build failures, hopefully making the job less stressful for us. It should also help us avoid late releases. Currently we're not able to begin building the release before Monday night (American timezones) or Tuesday morning (European timezones), which has led to several late releases on Thursday, Friday, and occasionally even later. Managing a release is usually a full-day task at least, and doing this on business days is very difficult for some of us. There's some more motivation for this discussed at [1]. An alternative proposal would be to use Saturday instead of Friday as the tarball deadline, which might be nicer for maintainers who prefer to release over the weekend. That would still allow release team to build the release on Sunday. Please, if you have any concerns, let us know. Also let us know if you have a preference between Friday and Saturday. Remember that the deadline still occurs at 23:59 UTC on the day specified. Michael [1] https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gnome-build-meta/issues/131 ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
