Re: voluptuous in DPMT
On Aug 02, 2016, at 11:35 PM, Thomas Goirand wrote: >I need voluptuous for OpenStack. So unless someone needs the version in >Unstable, I prefer to not risk to break anything, and upload updates to >Experimental, just in case the new version breaks something in the older >release of OpenStack. My intention was to upload Voluptuous to Unstable >when Newton was out. However, if you need it, then it's fine to upload >to Unstable, and if something break in OpenStack, then it's up to me to >repair... :) Okay, I *think* I'm parsing that as: if you need the newer version it's okay to upload to unstable. It's kind of hard to tell what's changed. Upstream doesn't seem to publish a changelog/news file afaict, and didn't even tag 0.9.2 in their git repo. But Ubuntu has the experimental version with a delta and I'd like to get those in sync, so I think it makes sense to upload the latest release. >Well, if you look at tracker.debian.org, then you'll see that I uploaded the >package in early June, when I had still no commit rights to the git of the >DPMT. Therefore, I couldn't "git push". Darn. >Unfortunately, after I got my write access back, I forgot about Voluptuous, >and therefore didn't git push. Sorry for that, and thanks so much for doing >the work of pushing the changes. No worries, and I'm glad you got your write access back. >The file here: >https://github.com/openstack/requirements/blob/master/upper-constraints.txt > >shows that OpenStack Newton (currently in Experimental) is right now gating >on 0.9.1 upstream, so 0.9.2 is probably fine as well. Please go ahead, you're >saving me some work! :) Hopefully, this wont break Mitaka (currently in Sid). Cool! This makes me wonder whether we can put something in the d/control or otherwise to indicate that a package may be used by OpenStack, and where to go for more information or sanity checks before new versions are uploaded. It definitely doesn't make sense to have to check for OpenStack compatibility for every DPMT package. I only noticed this one after looking at the open bugs and checking the versions in Debian and Ubuntu. Then I saw your unpushed upload and figured I better ask before I break stuff. :) Maybe we could add a header to d/control that would say something like "There's an OpenStack constraint on the version numbers, please check before you upload"? Then at least for a Maintainer: DPMT package, a quick email like mine could go out first. I'll upload 0.9.2 to unstable in a few minutes. Cheers, -Barry pgpZGSYlISNQm.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: voluptuous in DPMT
On 08/02/2016 07:54 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote: > Thomas, what's going on with the voluptuous package? > > I'm looking at starting to use it for a project and I noticed that it was > pretty out of date (the current upstream is 0.9.2). So I gbp cloned the DPMT > git-dpm repo and started to hack on it. The last upload appeared to be > 0.8.2-1 by Robert S. Edmonds, although Ondřej Nový made some recent > non-uploaded commits. > > Then I noticed that you've made two uploads since then, 0.8.8-1 to unstable > and 0.8.11-1 to experimental. But neither of these changes appears in DPMT > git repo for the package, afaict. > > So, questions: > > Why was 0.8.11 only uploaded to experimental? It doesn't seem to have all > that many reverse dependencies, so why not just upload it to unstable? I need voluptuous for OpenStack. So unless someone needs the version in Unstable, I prefer to not risk to break anything, and upload updates to Experimental, just in case the new version breaks something in the older release of OpenStack. My intention was to upload Voluptuous to Unstable when Newton was out. However, if you need it, then it's fine to upload to Unstable, and if something break in OpenStack, then it's up to me to repair... :) As of today, the only rdepends are: python-voluptuous Reverse Depends: gertty (1.3.1-1) Reverse Depends: lava-dev (2016.6-2) Reverse Depends: lava-server (2016.6-2) Reverse Depends: python-gnocchi (2.0.2-6) Reverse Depends: python-tooz (>= 1.34.0-2) Reverse Depends: python-watcher (>= 0.28.0-2) So, except lava, everything else is OpenStack related, so I think it's ok to follow this type of workflow. > And, why weren't your changes committed to git and pushed? Where did you make > your changes? I don't want to lose them, but since the package *is* DPMT > maintained, its git repo really should reflect all the uploads. Well, if you look at tracker.debian.org, then you'll see that I uploaded the package in early June, when I had still no commit rights to the git of the DPMT. Therefore, I couldn't "git push". Unfortunately, after I got my write access back, I forgot about Voluptuous, and therefore didn't git push. Sorry for that, and thanks so much for doing the work of pushing the changes. > You won't mind if I upload 0.9.2? The file here: https://github.com/openstack/requirements/blob/master/upper-constraints.txt shows that OpenStack Newton (currently in Experimental) is right now gating on 0.9.1 upstream, so 0.9.2 is probably fine as well. Please go ahead, you're saving me some work! :) Hopefully, this wont break Mitaka (currently in Sid). Cheers, Thomas Goirand (zigo)
Re: voluptuous in DPMT
On Aug 02, 2016, at 01:54 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote: >You won't mind if I upload 0.9.2? I'll try to merge your changes in, but >I've yet to see how easy that will be. Not too bad actually. I think I have it all prepped and ready to go in DPMT git. Cheers, -Barry pgpsyaBqHgRCL.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature
voluptuous in DPMT
Thomas, what's going on with the voluptuous package? I'm looking at starting to use it for a project and I noticed that it was pretty out of date (the current upstream is 0.9.2). So I gbp cloned the DPMT git-dpm repo and started to hack on it. The last upload appeared to be 0.8.2-1 by Robert S. Edmonds, although Ondřej Nový made some recent non-uploaded commits. Then I noticed that you've made two uploads since then, 0.8.8-1 to unstable and 0.8.11-1 to experimental. But neither of these changes appears in DPMT git repo for the package, afaict. So, questions: Why was 0.8.11 only uploaded to experimental? It doesn't seem to have all that many reverse dependencies, so why not just upload it to unstable? And, why weren't your changes committed to git and pushed? Where did you make your changes? I don't want to lose them, but since the package *is* DPMT maintained, its git repo really should reflect all the uploads. You won't mind if I upload 0.9.2? I'll try to merge your changes in, but I've yet to see how easy that will be. Cheers, -Barry pgpsvOHTk59eN.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature
