[not sure if you're subscribed, so explicitly CCed] On Tue, 2011-08-16 at 16:10 -0400, Luke Faraone wrote: > On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 15:59, Adam D. Barratt <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Apologies if I'm missing something but you say "only API keys needed to > > be updated", but the diff doesn't appear to include any such changes. > > > > (Aside from which, an enforced API bump for a field which currently has > > no purpose seems somewhat silly) > > No, you're not. I was thinking of the previous API bump, v30. My mind > must be going.
Okay. :-) > >> A patch is attached > >> which includes all changes which would need to be made. > > > > Out of interest, why does the changelog only mention the Launchpad bug, > > not the corresponding entry in the Debian BTS - particularly given that > > the upload to unstable included both? > > I added the BTS reference after making the diff, but then did not > remake the diff. Okay. The rest of the diff looks okay, so I've marked the package for acceptance at the next dinstall; thanks. > Out of curiosity, is it generally preferred to ask before uploading? Yes. I'm fairly sure all of the documentation regarding stable updates indicates this; if it doesn't, it should. > If an upload is made in error or needs additional work, it can always > be removed from the queue, no? It can, but only by waiting for a dinstall cycle and then clearing out various internal state used by the tools which generate http://release.debian.org/proposed-updates/stable.html , for example. (Otherwise the debdiff will be for the previous upload, as will the installability check logs). Particularly for packages which take a while for the maintainer to build and/or test, the time difference between a proposal->comment->rework cycle and an upload->reject->upload cycle can be quite significant. Regards, Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
