Bug#915050: (gitlab) Re: Bug#915050: Keep out of testing
On 2019, മാർച്ച് 3 10:45:19 PM IST, Justin Hallett wrote: >Well I hope it comes to that personally, cause I think you have been >doing a great job, it’s a TON of work to maintain all the depends you >do for gitlab and honestly there are rarely issues and when they are >you fix them very quickly after a report. > >It’s very upsetting that I now have 10 tickets in my queue because of >things I can’t do on gitlab since this ticket broke everything! > >I have it working but barely and lots of important tasks like PRs >aren’t working at all. Let me know if there is anything I can do, test >or help with in any way. > Currently the blocker is rails 5.2 support, tracked in this upstream issue. https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/48392 If you can help with that anyway, that'd be great. >And thank you for all your hard work on this project! > Thanks for your kind words. -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
Bug#915050: (gitlab) Re: Bug#915050: Keep out of testing
Well I hope it comes to that personally, cause I think you have been doing a great job, it’s a TON of work to maintain all the depends you do for gitlab and honestly there are rarely issues and when they are you fix them very quickly after a report. It’s very upsetting that I now have 10 tickets in my queue because of things I can’t do on gitlab since this ticket broke everything! I have it working but barely and lots of important tasks like PRs aren’t working at all. Let me know if there is anything I can do, test or help with in any way. And thank you for all your hard work on this project! > On Mar 3, 2019, at 3:40 AM, Pirate Praveen wrote: > > On Mon, 25 Feb 2019 07:45:36 -0700 Justin Hallett > wrote: > > This ticket is bogus and should be closed and removed so that gitlab can be > > fixed in testing and restore the faith of its users. > > I think we have not received the same level of respect from the rest of the > project. Since everyone is pushing for strict interpretation of rules with no > regards to our contribution, I'm also forced to go by the strict > interpretation of rules. Once we get gitlab working with rails 5.2, and if > this bug is the only blocker, I will close this bug as bogus asserting my > rights as the maintainer. > > -- > Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
Bug#915050: (gitlab) Re: Bug#915050: Keep out of testing
On Mon, 25 Feb 2019 07:45:36 -0700 Justin Hallett wrote: > This ticket is bogus and should be closed and removed so that gitlab can be > fixed in testing and restore the faith of its users. I think we have not received the same level of respect from the rest of the project. Since everyone is pushing for strict interpretation of rules with no regards to our contribution, I'm also forced to go by the strict interpretation of rules. Once we get gitlab working with rails 5.2, and if this bug is the only blocker, I will close this bug as bogus asserting my rights as the maintainer. -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
Bug#915050: (gitlab) Re: Bug#915050: Keep out of testing
On Mon, 25 Feb 2019 07:45:36 -0700 Justin Hallett wrote: > By keeping this out of testing you are really leaving those of us running it > and depending on it in a real mess. To get rails 2.5 support I had to do > some serious Debian badness, this really sucks, couldn’t it just be kept out > of backports if that is the issue instead of causing harm to those of us that > were happy with it? Not I have 3 companies that depends on this install that > are all up a creek and I can’t even convert to omni (ce) cause you can’t > restore a backup of a different version and type (Don’t get me started on > this part). > > So those of us that happy using it and are now totally FUBARed, what’s the > plan for us while everyone complains and discusses things and we have > completely unusable installs now? > > Testing is for testing things after all, how could it go any place if it’s > not being tested? Stable is always too old, heck it has rails 2.3 for > heavens sake and php7.0. Testing is more work but it’s were I choose to run > things so I can stay relevant, and in all my years running testing (over 15 > years) I have never had a major package just get pulled. I couldn’t use the > back ports version since it required rails 2.3, so I had to go to > experimental which is nuts. Pirate Praveen has been doing a great job trying > to keep up with countless depends and keeping things up to date and stable > and now he is being blocked and in turn breaking every install of testing out > there. This is just insane!! > > This ticket is bogus and should be closed and removed so that gitlab can be > fixed in testing and restore the faith of its users. Now it is going to be removed from stretch-backports as well. -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
Bug#915050: (gitlab) Re: Bug#915050: Keep out of testing
By keeping this out of testing you are really leaving those of us running it and depending on it in a real mess. To get rails 2.5 support I had to do some serious Debian badness, this really sucks, couldn’t it just be kept out of backports if that is the issue instead of causing harm to those of us that were happy with it? Not I have 3 companies that depends on this install that are all up a creek and I can’t even convert to omni (ce) cause you can’t restore a backup of a different version and type (Don’t get me started on this part). So those of us that happy using it and are now totally FUBARed, what’s the plan for us while everyone complains and discusses things and we have completely unusable installs now? Testing is for testing things after all, how could it go any place if it’s not being tested? Stable is always too old, heck it has rails 2.3 for heavens sake and php7.0. Testing is more work but it’s were I choose to run things so I can stay relevant, and in all my years running testing (over 15 years) I have never had a major package just get pulled. I couldn’t use the back ports version since it required rails 2.3, so I had to go to experimental which is nuts. Pirate Praveen has been doing a great job trying to keep up with countless depends and keeping things up to date and stable and now he is being blocked and in turn breaking every install of testing out there. This is just insane!! This ticket is bogus and should be closed and removed so that gitlab can be fixed in testing and restore the faith of its users.
Bug#915050: (gitlab) Re: Bug#915050: Keep out of testing
On Wed, 19 Dec 2018 00:55:39 +0100 Dominik George wrote: > >> We had volatile, which, redefined properly, could help. I am trying > >to draft such a definition. > > > >Did you get a chance to work on it? > > I do have this on my todo list for around Christmas. > > People who know me that I deliberately leave out the year, but my intentions > are 2018 ;). Adding this here for completeness https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2018/12/msg00297.html signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#915050: (gitlab) Re: Bug#915050: Keep out of testing
>> We had volatile, which, redefined properly, could help. I am trying >to draft such a definition. > >Did you get a chance to work on it? I do have this on my todo list for around Christmas. People who know me that I deliberately leave out the year, but my intentions are 2018 ;). -nik
Bug#915050: (gitlab) Re: Bug#915050: Keep out of testing
On Wednesday, 19 December 2018 9:17:51 AM AEDT Thorsten Glaser wrote: > Did you mean: in an unstable-like “volatile” repo? Yes perhaps more like "unstable". I'm saying that IMHO we should have only one common/shared "PPA" for "stable" users. I do not want many personal/individual archives. > Backports have a defined mission, which has nothing to do > with the “volatile” proposal. What you were referring to, > integration- and checks-wise, is, I think what you get in > *any* repository maintained by ftpmasters, so it’d be more > like sid, except only a partial distribution (add-on). I also think that we could just relax official "backports" criteria but that would be so hard that it seem easier to arrange another "volatile" repo... -- Regards, Dmitry Smirnov. --- Success consists of going from failure to failure without loss of enthusiasm. -- Winston Churchill signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Bug#915050: (gitlab) Re: Bug#915050: Keep out of testing
On Wed, 19 Dec 2018, Dmitry Smirnov wrote: > trust - a something we can only have in backports-like "volatile" repo. Did you mean: in an unstable-like “volatile” repo? Backports have a defined mission, which has nothing to do with the “volatile” proposal. What you were referring to, integration- and checks-wise, is, I think what you get in *any* repository maintained by ftpmasters, so it’d be more like sid, except only a partial distribution (add-on). bye, //mirabilos -- tarent solutions GmbH Rochusstraße 2-4, D-53123 Bonn • http://www.tarent.de/ Tel: +49 228 54881-393 • Fax: +49 228 54881-235 HRB 5168 (AG Bonn) • USt-ID (VAT): DE122264941 Geschäftsführer: Dr. Stefan Barth, Kai Ebenrett, Boris Esser, Alexander Steeg
Bug#915050: (gitlab) Re: Bug#915050: Keep out of testing
On Wednesday, 19 December 2018 2:11:43 AM AEDT Holger Levsen wrote: > instead of volatile we need PPAs. I think concept of "volatile" is better, stronger. PPA allows people to ship whatever they want without cooperating in policy compliant (official) repo. This is the Debian way where many people work together in one centralized resource. Many people working in many places (PPA) will undermine cooperativeness and trust - a something we can only have in backports-like "volatile" repo. -- Cheers, Dmitry Smirnov. --- The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie -- deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought. -- John F Kennedy signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Bug#915050: (gitlab) Re: Bug#915050: Keep out of testing
On 12/18/18 8:41 PM, Holger Levsen wrote: > On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 08:38:39PM +0530, Pirate Praveen wrote: >> But if that is not possible, volatile as a separate archive is also fine. > > instead of volatile we need PPAs. I think a redefined volatile is the best option for sharing work. But PPA approach is best in case of conflicts. I'm leaning towards volatile and hence I proposed it. If you feel strongly about PPAs, please propose and drive it. Either option will work for me. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#915050: (gitlab) Re: Bug#915050: Keep out of testing
On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 10:12 AM Holger Levsen wrote: > On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 08:38:39PM +0530, Pirate Praveen wrote: > > But if that is not possible, volatile as a separate archive is also fine. > > instead of volatile we need PPAs. Shortly before the Stretch release, when I was scrambling to find a way to provide updates for webkit2gtk for Stretch's lifetime, I think volatile was suggested as something that was able to sort of do what I needed. But it's not a good example since Debian Security ought to handle webkit2gtk updates for Buster, as is done with Firefox ESR and Chromium. Thanks, Jeremy Bicha
Bug#915050: (gitlab) Re: Bug#915050: Keep out of testing
On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 08:38:39PM +0530, Pirate Praveen wrote: > But if that is not possible, volatile as a separate archive is also fine. instead of volatile we need PPAs. -- cheers, Holger --- holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org PGP fingerprint: B8BF 5413 7B09 D35C F026 FE9D 091A B856 069A AA1C signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#915050: (gitlab) Re: Bug#915050: Keep out of testing
On 2018, ഡിസംബർ 18 7:14:14 PM IST, Rhonda D'Vine wrote: > And yes, I'm with Alexander, the volatile maintenance can't be dumped >on the backports team. It's a different workflow anyway. My proposal for backports is to have only the dependencies of packages in volatile that fall in the current definition of backports kept there, ie, 1. They are already in testing and 2. will be part of next stable. And use volatile only for packages that cannot fit this criteria. I'd be happy to join the backports team to help with the extra load. I hope others will join too. But if that is not possible, volatile as a separate archive is also fine. It is just that many packages will have to be in both archives and that is a lot of extra work, which I think can be avoided. -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
Bug#915050: (gitlab) Re: Bug#915050: Keep out of testing
Hey, * Pirate Praveen [2018-12-18 09:34:46 CET]: > On 12/3/18 8:11 PM, Dominik George wrote: > >> well, Debian is using gitlab!!! so this sentence has no sense. The > >> problem here > >> is that is a complex software that depends of a lot of pieces and it's > >> not > >> easy/possible to fit the definition. So, maybe we should create another > >> category > >> of software. > > > > Yes, and that Debian officially uses GitLab, from a foreign source, without > > being able to support it in Debian, does make me feel ashamed for the > > project. > > > >> maybe creating another kind of repo. debian-contributuions > >> debian-blabla, whatever. > >> > > > > We had volatile, which, redefined properly, could help. I am trying to > > draft such a definition. > > Did you get a chance to work on it? Yes, it looks very much that the shutting down of volatile made wishes appear for backports to cover it - while it wasn't (and shouldn't) be the scope for it. It would make it indistinguishable which packages within backports are following the regular rules and which would be those fast moving targets without any useful tracking or upgrade features in the regular sense. (Part of that was btw. also the creation of a seperate sloppy pocket for backports from oldstable+2 releases, to make it clear what to expect in there) And yes, I'm with Alexander, the volatile maintenance can't be dumped on the backports team. It's a different workflow anyway. Good luck, Rhonda -- Fühlst du dich mutlos, fass endlich Mut, los | Fühlst du dich hilflos, geh raus und hilf, los| Wir sind Helden Fühlst du dich machtlos, geh raus und mach, los | 23.55: Alles auf Anfang Fühlst du dich haltlos, such Halt und lass los|
Bug#915050: (gitlab) Re: Bug#915050: Keep out of testing
On Tue, 18 Dec 2018, Pirate Praveen wrote: > [adding -devel to cc] > > On 12/3/18 8:11 PM, Dominik George wrote: > >> well, Debian is using gitlab!!! so this sentence has no sense. The > >> problem here > >> is that is a complex software that depends of a lot of pieces and it's > >> not > >> easy/possible to fit the definition. So, maybe we should create another > >> category > >> of software. > > > > Yes, and that Debian officially uses GitLab, from a foreign source, without > > being able to support it in Debian, does make me feel ashamed for the > > project. > > > >> maybe creating another kind of repo. debian-contributuions > >> debian-blabla, whatever. > >> > > > > We had volatile, which, redefined properly, could help. I am trying to > > draft such a definition. > > Did you get a chance to work on it? > > I think it has to be an extension of backports with dependencies that > fall within the backports criteria being maintained in backports and > only packages that cannot be in backports maintained in volatile. > > Original definition of volatile from https://www.debian.org/volatile/: > "Some packages aim at fast moving targets, such as spam filtering and > virus scanning, and even when using updated data patterns, they do not > really work for the full time of a stable release. The main goal of > volatile is allowing system administrators to update their systems in a > nice, consistent way, without getting the drawbacks of using unstable, > even without getting the drawbacks for the selected packages. So > debian-volatile will only contain changes to stable programs that are > necessary to keep them functional." > > Proposed definition: > "Some packages aim at fast moving targets, such as complex web based > software with very small release cycles and new dependencies, they do > not receive security support or bug fixes for the full time of a stable > release. This means backporting targeted fixes are impossible. The main > goal of volatile is allowing system administrators to update their > systems in a nice, consistent way, without getting the drawbacks of > using unstable, even without getting the drawbacks for the selected > packages. New dependencies introduced can be maintained in backports > repository. So debian-volatile will be an extension of debian-backports, > with dependencies that fall within the criteria maintained in > debian-backports." I don't think that -backports is the right suite. It should be something new, with a new team. Alex signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#915050: (gitlab) Re: Bug#915050: Keep out of testing
[adding -devel to cc] On 12/3/18 8:11 PM, Dominik George wrote: >> well, Debian is using gitlab!!! so this sentence has no sense. The >> problem here >> is that is a complex software that depends of a lot of pieces and it's >> not >> easy/possible to fit the definition. So, maybe we should create another >> category >> of software. > > Yes, and that Debian officially uses GitLab, from a foreign source, without > being able to support it in Debian, does make me feel ashamed for the project. > >> maybe creating another kind of repo. debian-contributuions >> debian-blabla, whatever. >> > > We had volatile, which, redefined properly, could help. I am trying to draft > such a definition. Did you get a chance to work on it? I think it has to be an extension of backports with dependencies that fall within the backports criteria being maintained in backports and only packages that cannot be in backports maintained in volatile. Original definition of volatile from https://www.debian.org/volatile/: "Some packages aim at fast moving targets, such as spam filtering and virus scanning, and even when using updated data patterns, they do not really work for the full time of a stable release. The main goal of volatile is allowing system administrators to update their systems in a nice, consistent way, without getting the drawbacks of using unstable, even without getting the drawbacks for the selected packages. So debian-volatile will only contain changes to stable programs that are necessary to keep them functional." Proposed definition: "Some packages aim at fast moving targets, such as complex web based software with very small release cycles and new dependencies, they do not receive security support or bug fixes for the full time of a stable release. This means backporting targeted fixes are impossible. The main goal of volatile is allowing system administrators to update their systems in a nice, consistent way, without getting the drawbacks of using unstable, even without getting the drawbacks for the selected packages. New dependencies introduced can be maintained in backports repository. So debian-volatile will be an extension of debian-backports, with dependencies that fall within the criteria maintained in debian-backports." signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#915050: (gitlab) Re: Bug#915050: Keep out of testing
On 2018, ഡിസംബർ 3 8:11:58 PM IST, Dominik George wrote: >We had volatile, which, redefined properly, could help. I am trying to >draft such a definition. Thanks, that is required to keep gitlab in a supportable form (unstable directly is not the best option). I think an Ubuntu PPA like approach is easier to manage. We can create buster-gitlab suite (a suite per such complex software) and we don't have to support combination of PPAs. -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
Bug#915050: (gitlab) Re: Bug#915050: Keep out of testing
>well, Debian is using gitlab!!! so this sentence has no sense. The >problem here >is that is a complex software that depends of a lot of pieces and it's >not >easy/possible to fit the definition. So, maybe we should create another >category >of software. Yes, and that Debian officially uses GitLab, from a foreign source, without being able to support it in Debian, does make me feel ashamed for the project. >maybe creating another kind of repo. debian-contributuions >debian-blabla, whatever. > We had volatile, which, redefined properly, could help. I am trying to draft such a definition. -nik
Bug#915050: (gitlab) Re: Bug#915050: Keep out of testing
El 30/11/18 a les 15:16, Thorsten Glaser ha escrit: > On Fri, 30 Nov 2018, Pirate Praveen wrote: > >> That is indeed the current definition. The question is about the >> possibility of changing that definition or finding other ways to maybe creating another kind of repo. debian-contributuions debian-blabla, whatever. [...] > If your upstreams aren’t, they’re probably not worth the > effort using the software. well, Debian is using gitlab!!! so this sentence has no sense. The problem here is that is a complex software that depends of a lot of pieces and it's not easy/possible to fit the definition. So, maybe we should create another category of software. Cheers, Leopold -- -- Linux User 152692 GPG: 05F4A7A949A2D9AA Catalonia - A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail? signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#915050: (gitlab) Re: Bug#915050: Keep out of testing
On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 06:01:26PM +0200, Jan Groenewald wrote: > Hi > > On Fri, 30 Nov 2018 at 16:43, Holger Levsen wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 07:39:20PM +0530, Pirate Praveen wrote: > > >Backports are *always* from testing because a backport is > > >supposed to be replaced by the regular stable version of > > >the subsequent release. > > That is indeed the current definition. > > Me too is very happy with it. > > > Another option could be to have personal package archive for gitlab. > > That. And if you don't want to wait until they arrive in Debian proper, > I'd suggest you'd host such an archive yourself. > > > There is https://packages.gitlab.com/gitlab/gitlab-ce > > (deb https://packages.gitlab.com/gitlab/gitlab-ce/debian/ stretch main) That "omnibus package" which contains everything and the kitchen sink is awful. -- To the thief who stole my anti-depressants: I hope you're happy -- seen somewhere on the Internet on a photo of a billboard
Bug#915050: (gitlab) Re: Bug#915050: Keep out of testing
On Fri, 30 Nov 2018 18:01:26 +0200 Jan Groenewald wrote: > There is https://packages.gitlab.com/gitlab/gitlab-ce > > (deb https://packages.gitlab.com/gitlab/gitlab-ce/debian/ stretch main) Sorry, but no. Just no, no, no and no. Those binary dumps are horrible. They are essentially just dumping 2/3 of an outdated(*) Linux system to /opt. Pirate Praveen is doing an awesome job of packaging this very complex piece of software in a proper way and I at least am very grateful for this. Even if it is only available in unstable, it's a lot better than those blobs provided upstream. Cheers, sur5r (*) - Postgres 9.6 - openSSL 1.0.0 (??!) - Python 3.4 ... the list goes on
Bug#915050: (gitlab) Re: Bug#915050: Keep out of testing
Hi On Fri, 30 Nov 2018 at 16:43, Holger Levsen wrote: > On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 07:39:20PM +0530, Pirate Praveen wrote: > > >Backports are *always* from testing because a backport is > > >supposed to be replaced by the regular stable version of > > >the subsequent release. > > That is indeed the current definition. > > Me too is very happy with it. > > > Another option could be to have personal package archive for gitlab. > > That. And if you don't want to wait until they arrive in Debian proper, > I'd suggest you'd host such an archive yourself. > There is https://packages.gitlab.com/gitlab/gitlab-ce (deb https://packages.gitlab.com/gitlab/gitlab-ce/debian/ stretch main) Regards, Jan -- .~. /V\ Jan Groenewald /( )\www.aims.ac.za ^^-^^
Bug#915050: (gitlab) Re: Bug#915050: Keep out of testing
On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 07:39:20PM +0530, Pirate Praveen wrote: > >Backports are *always* from testing because a backport is > >supposed to be replaced by the regular stable version of > >the subsequent release. > That is indeed the current definition. Me too is very happy with it. > Another option could be to have personal package archive for gitlab. That. And if you don't want to wait until they arrive in Debian proper, I'd suggest you'd host such an archive yourself. -- cheers, Holger --- holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org PGP fingerprint: B8BF 5413 7B09 D35C F026 FE9D 091A B856 069A AA1C signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#915050: (gitlab) Re: Bug#915050: Keep out of testing
On Fri, 30 Nov 2018, Pirate Praveen wrote: > That is indeed the current definition. The question is about the > possibility of changing that definition or finding other ways to No. It’s there for good reasons, including stability. > accommodate fast changing software like gitlab. Broadening the Find a way to pick stable, slow changing versions of it and improve their packaging in testing/unstable so you can backport it. Work with upstream towards that goal. Some upstreams are receptive of stabilising certain versions in order to get packaged. If your upstreams aren’t, they’re probably not worth the effort using the software. bye, //mirabilos -- [16:04:33] bkix: "veni vidi violini" [16:04:45] bkix: "ich kam, sah und vergeigte"...
Bug#915050: (gitlab) Re: Bug#915050: Keep out of testing
On 2018, നവംബർ 30 5:14:20 PM IST, Thorsten Glaser wrote: >On Fri, 30 Nov 2018, Pirate Praveen wrote: > >> How about allowing gitlab to be backported directly from unstable? > >No. > >Backports are *always* from testing because a backport is >supposed to be replaced by the regular stable version of >the subsequent release. That is indeed the current definition. The question is about the possibility of changing that definition or finding other ways to accommodate fast changing software like gitlab. Broadening the definition of backports is one possible option I see. Another option could be to have personal package archive for gitlab. -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
Bug#915050: (gitlab) Re: Bug#915050: Keep out of testing
On Fri, 30 Nov 2018, Pirate Praveen wrote: > How about allowing gitlab to be backported directly from unstable? No. Backports are *always* from testing because a backport is supposed to be replaced by the regular stable version of the subsequent release. Hence, only from testing, in the hope that the package being in testing means the package will be in the next stable. (Which also means that, when the package gets removed from testing, the backport should probably be deleted.) Backports are *not* a primary means of delivering software. Backports are for people who think they need the software from Debian x+1 on Debian x. bye, //mirabilos -- tarent solutions GmbH Rochusstraße 2-4, D-53123 Bonn • http://www.tarent.de/ Tel: +49 228 54881-393 • Fax: +49 228 54881-235 HRB 5168 (AG Bonn) • USt-ID (VAT): DE122264941 Geschäftsführer: Dr. Stefan Barth, Kai Ebenrett, Boris Esser, Alexander Steeg
Bug#915050: (gitlab) Re: Bug#915050: Keep out of testing
On 2018, നവംബർ 30 1:29:59 AM IST, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote: >Source: gitlab >Severity: serious > >Gitlab is too fast-moving with weekly releases and backporting security >fixes has already >failed us for stretch, keep it out of testing. > >To meaningfully support it for use on stable, this would require some >of the >infrastructure/policy changes discussed in the "What can Debian do to >provide >complex applications to its users" thread from earlier the year on >debian-devel. > How about allowing gitlab to be backported directly from unstable? I'm willing to volunteer for backports ftp team. -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
