On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 12:29:44 +0200, bertagaz wrote:
unblock tahoe-lafs/1.9.2-1
Please unblock package tahoe-lafs
145 files changed, 5152 insertions(+), 3138 deletions(-)
:(
excluding docs and tests, it's still
131 files changed, 4290 insertions(+), 2705 deletions(-)
which is
On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 20:32:01 +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 12:29:44 +0200, bertagaz wrote:
unblock tahoe-lafs/1.9.2-1
Please unblock package tahoe-lafs
145 files changed, 5152 insertions(+), 3138 deletions(-)
:(
excluding docs and tests, it's still
Hi,
On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 08:37:05PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 20:32:01 +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 12:29:44 +0200, bertagaz wrote:
unblock tahoe-lafs/1.9.2-1
Please unblock package tahoe-lafs
145 files changed, 5152
On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 23:01:00 +0200, berta...@ptitcanardnoir.org wrote:
Dunno what to say, appart that 1.9.1 *is* broken, and it shouldn't be
shipped into wheezy, as it *has been reported* to be so to upstream by
many users.
Ok, that's good to know. Though if it's that broken one wonders
Hi! Thanks for double-checking the diff from Tahoe-LAFS 1.9.1 to
1.9.2, Julien. Here's our map of the changes that we intended to
commit. If you see that there are substantial changes other than the
ones listed here, then I would like to know about it! Thanks.
On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 11:18:33PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 23:01:00 +0200, berta...@ptitcanardnoir.org wrote:
Dunno what to say, appart that 1.9.1 *is* broken, and it shouldn't be
shipped into wheezy, as it *has been reported* to be so to upstream by
many
P.S. Also there is this view, which shows all the patches that were
committed to the 1.9.2 branch:
https://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe-lafs/log/1.9.2/?action=follow_copymode=follow_copyrev=5540stop_rev=limit=61verbose=on
Regards,
Zooko
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
But then please don't spend your night on that particular package. While I
was replying to you, someone raised a bug (#683331) that should probably
be fixed before tahoe-lafs would be included in wheezy. So I'll probably
close this one, and schedule inclusion for Wheezy+1 if possible (cause it
On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 04:30:30PM -0600, Zooko Wilcox-O'Hearn wrote:
But then please don't spend your night on that particular package. While I
was replying to you, someone raised a bug (#683331) that should probably
be fixed before tahoe-lafs would be included in wheezy. So I'll probably
9 matches
Mail list logo
