2015-11-07 1:12 GMT+01:00 Jérémy Lal :
>
>
> 2015-10-26 9:39 GMT+01:00 Dmitry Smirnov :
>
>> On Sunday 25 October 2015 14:25:28 Jérémy Lal wrote:
>> > I'm trying to find how to fix it.
>>
>> Thanks. I hope you have some ideas about it or we will just have to
2015-10-26 9:39 GMT+01:00 Dmitry Smirnov :
> On Sunday 25 October 2015 14:25:28 Jérémy Lal wrote:
> > I'm trying to find how to fix it.
>
> Thanks. I hope you have some ideas about it or we will just have to open
> upstream bug...
>
I haven't found why it's not building right
On Sunday 25 October 2015 14:25:28 Jérémy Lal wrote:
> I'm trying to find how to fix it.
Thanks. I hope you have some ideas about it or we will just have to open
upstream bug...
> Please also accept my apologies for the non-friendly tone i had before.
No worries. :)
By the way thank you for
On Saturday 24 October 2015 15:49:52 Jérémy Lal wrote:
> About the FTBFS: the package is missing a build dependency on python-gi-dev
Adding "python-gi-dev" to Build-Depends have no effect on the following FTBFS:
Merging translations into data/gitg.desktop.
/usr/bin/g-ir-compiler
2015-10-25 9:26 GMT+01:00 Dmitry Smirnov :
> On Saturday 24 October 2015 15:49:52 Jérémy Lal wrote:
> > About the FTBFS: the package is missing a build dependency on
> python-gi-dev
>
> Adding "python-gi-dev" to Build-Depends have no effect on the following
> FTBFS:
>
>
>
2015-10-24 13:34 GMT+02:00 Dmitry Smirnov :
> On Saturday 24 October 2015 10:47:11 Jérémy Lal wrote:
> > In less than five minutes i was able to workaround the FTBFS and have
> > a gitg 3.18 debian package built.
>
> It is nice that you see the obvious way to fix it. Maybe you
2015-10-24 10:32 GMT+02:00 Dmitry Smirnov :
> On Saturday 24 October 2015 09:49:15 Jérémy Lal wrote:
> > i'm now a happy daily user of gitg 3.18 on debian/sid - and couldn't work
> > without it.
>
> I'm glad for you but as a daily user of older Gitg-2 I can't use new one
>
On Saturday 24 October 2015 09:49:15 Jérémy Lal wrote:
> i'm now a happy daily user of gitg 3.18 on debian/sid - and couldn't work
> without it.
I'm glad for you but as a daily user of older Gitg-2 I can't use new one
(3.x) due to
* broken/unusable diff view making it impossible to review
On Saturday 24 October 2015 10:47:11 Jérémy Lal wrote:
> In less than five minutes i was able to workaround the FTBFS and have
> a gitg 3.18 debian package built.
It is nice that you see the obvious way to fix it. Maybe you could share your
workaround? Unfortunately solution to FTBFS is not that
Package: gitg
Followup-For: Bug #801549
Dear Maintainer,
i'm now a happy daily user of gitg 3.18 on debian/sid - and couldn't work
without it.
Note the slow loading of large diffs seems to be fixed (2 seconds for a very
large one).
Please accept help for packaging, as i really don't understand
On 13/10/15 00:10, Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
On Monday 12 October 2015 12:31:31 Ghislain Vaillant wrote:
And is actively developed upstream. AFAIK, the 0.2.x branch is
deprecated and won't receive any bugfix / feature.
This is true although I'm not happy with support of 3.x either...
As a matter
On Tuesday 13 October 2015 10:03:49 Ghislain Vaillant wrote:
> Gitg 3.17.x is "usable", just not by your standards.
It is not usable to me. I can't review diffs affecting many files and
(although I won't hold Gitg just for this reason) I can't wait for 10 seconds
every time I start it before it
On 13/10/15 11:26, Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
On Tuesday 13 October 2015 10:03:49 Ghislain Vaillant wrote:
Gitg 3.17.x is "usable", just not by your standards.
It is not usable to me. I can't review diffs affecting many files and
(although I won't hold Gitg just for this reason) I can't wait for
On Tuesday 13 October 2015 12:28:22 Ghislain Vaillant wrote:
> Let's keep the ball rolling. Can you provide a comprehensive list of
> features / bugfixes that should be included for a future release to be
> worthy of an upload to unstable?
>
> Have all these been passed along to upstream? Which
On Monday 12 October 2015 07:35:38 Ghislain Vaillant wrote:
>* start-up times: *slow* is subjective and quite variable from one
> user to another.
Subjectiveness is not the point here. Maybe it depends on size of repository
but in my testing on same machine and on same repositories, when
On 12/10/15 01:21, Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
On Monday 12 October 2015 00:39:06 Ghislain Antony Vaillant wrote:
A new upstream version is available (3.18.0) which brings some more
improvement and bugfixes [1]. Please consider submitting an update
to the current package in experimental at least,
I
On Monday 12 October 2015 18:20:21 Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
> Maybe it depends on size of
> repository but in my testing on same machine and on same repositories,
> when started multiple times (to make sure it uses caching) Gitg-3 starts 5
> to 15 times slower than Gitg-2.
I've forgotten to mention
On Monday 12 October 2015 09:53:00 Ghislain Vaillant wrote:
> I won't open that can of worms again, much has been said on that subject
> already on the GNOME-2 / MATE / GNOME-3 debate a few years back.
>
> Moving the discussion forward, I won't try to convince you to go a
> different path.
On 12/10/15 08:23, Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
On Monday 12 October 2015 18:20:21 Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
Maybe it depends on size of
repository but in my testing on same machine and on same repositories,
when started multiple times (to make sure it uses caching) Gitg-3 starts 5
to 15 times slower than
On 12/10/15 08:20, Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
On Monday 12 October 2015 07:35:38 Ghislain Vaillant wrote:
* start-up times: *slow* is subjective and quite variable from one
user to another.
Subjectiveness is not the point here. Maybe it depends on size of repository
but in my testing on same
On 12/10/15 11:39, Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
On Monday 12 October 2015 09:53:00 Ghislain Vaillant wrote:
I won't open that can of worms again, much has been said on that subject
already on the GNOME-2 / MATE / GNOME-3 debate a few years back.
Moving the discussion forward, I won't try to convince
On Monday 12 October 2015 12:31:31 Ghislain Vaillant wrote:
> And is actively developed upstream. AFAIK, the 0.2.x branch is
> deprecated and won't receive any bugfix / feature.
This is true although I'm not happy with support of 3.x either...
As a matter of fact 0.2.x stopped receiving updates
Package: gitg
Version: 3.17.1-1
Severity: wishlist
Dear Maintainer,
A new upstream version is available (3.18.0) which brings some more
improvement and bugfixes [1]. Please consider submitting an update
to the current package in experimental at least, or even unstable,
if your opinion
On Monday 12 October 2015 00:39:06 Ghislain Antony Vaillant wrote:
> A new upstream version is available (3.18.0) which brings some more
> improvement and bugfixes [1]. Please consider submitting an update
> to the current package in experimental at least,
I can't upload 3.18.0 because it FTBFS
24 matches
Mail list logo