On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 5:28 PM, Karl Goetz wrote:
As a (largely) non coder, what should I look for in (say) gNewSenses
patches to know if it can be filtered out automatically? Are there any
common indicators?
Anything that looks like cruft or things that the Debian maintainer
does not need
On Mon, 31 Oct 2011 18:34:47 +0800
Paul Wise p...@debian.org wrote:
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 5:28 PM, Karl Goetz wrote:
As a (largely) non coder, what should I look for in (say) gNewSenses
patches to know if it can be filtered out automatically? Are there
any common indicators?
Hi all,
Up to now the only options for pulling patches from distributions
derived from Debian have been Ubuntu's Debian patches repository[1] and
manual downloads of source packages from derivatives. In my estimation a
more general way to do this would be desirable.
1.
hiya,
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 03:50:07PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
For the presentation side of things I am thinking one approach might be
to move UbuntuDiff[8] to the QA infrastructure, generalise it and
enhance it for this purpose. This will necessarily include mechanisms to
mark patches as
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 4:58 PM, sean finney wrote:
I think it's also worth some consideration about if/how it could be
integrated with the Debian patch-tracker service (or perhaps supercede said
service if it made more sense).
Without thinking super hard on it it seems like it could have
On 25/10/2011 09:50, Paul Wise wrote:
For the presentation side of things I am thinking one approach might be
to move UbuntuDiff[8] to the QA infrastructure, generalise it and
enhance it for this purpose. This will necessarily include mechanisms
to mark patches as having been dealt with or
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 15:50:07 +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
Hi all,
Up to now the only options for pulling patches from distributions
derived from Debian have been Ubuntu's Debian patches repository[1] and
manual downloads of source packages from derivatives. In my estimation a
more general
On Tue, 25 Oct 2011 13:57:20 +0200
Mehdi Dogguy me...@dogguy.org wrote:
On 25/10/2011 09:50, Paul Wise wrote:
For the presentation side of things I am thinking one approach
might be to move UbuntuDiff[8] to the QA infrastructure, generalise
it and enhance it for this purpose. This will
Am Mittwoch, den 26.10.2011, 08:49 +1100 schrieb Karl Goetz:
On Tue, 25 Oct 2011 13:57:20 +0200
Mehdi Dogguy me...@dogguy.org wrote:
On 25/10/2011 09:50, Paul Wise wrote:
For the presentation side of things I am thinking one approach
might be to move UbuntuDiff[8] to the QA
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 4:01 AM, Julien Cristau wrote:
Is there a reason to restrict this to derivatives? I find patches from
fedora rather more interesting than ubuntu's.
Fedora don't use Debian source packages so we don't have anything to
debdiff against.
But I guess you mean patches
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 7:57 PM, Mehdi Dogguy wrote:
I'm glad you liked it. ubuntudiff¹ was made exactly to show this kind of
data. Currently, all ubuntudiff needs to produce html pages in some file
listing source package names and associated patches. So, nothing is really
bound to
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 7:57 PM, Mehdi Dogguy wrote:
I'm glad you liked it. ubuntudiff¹ was made exactly to show this kind of
data. Currently, all ubuntudiff needs to produce html pages in some file
listing source package names and associated patches. So, nothing is really
bound to
12 matches
Mail list logo
