On Thursday, 19 January 2017 10:41:23 AM AEDT TFAUCK wrote:
> Initially I thought that maintainers of etcd 2.0 which are also
> maintainers for packages relative to go were going to do it, but I may
> be wrong there.
I'm not sure what are you trying to say...
Maintainers (upstream developers) of E
On Sat, 14 Jan 2017 17:54:30 +1100 Dmitry Smirnov
wrote:
> On Friday, 13 January 2017 1:57:33 PM AEDT TFAUCK wrote:
> > So what do we do for that issue ?
>
> Hopefully fix it eventually by updating "etcd" package...
>
>
> > who's going to decide if there is a
> > need for new package or just an
On Friday, 13 January 2017 1:57:33 PM AEDT TFAUCK wrote:
> So what do we do for that issue ?
Hopefully fix it eventually by updating "etcd" package...
> who's going to decide if there is a
> need for new package or just and upgrade ?
That would be me... :)
The matter is quite simple: if my unde
On Fri, 06 Jan 2017 11:50:53 +1100 Dmitry Smirnov
wrote:
> On Wednesday, 4 January 2017 12:03:44 AM AEDT Potter, Tim wrote:
> > Hi there. I've currently got someone working on a etcd3 package - still
> > tossing up whether to create a new binary package and keep etcd as
> > implicitly version 2 o
On Wednesday, 4 January 2017 12:03:44 AM AEDT Potter, Tim wrote:
> Hi there. I've currently got someone working on a etcd3 package - still
> tossing up whether to create a new binary package and keep etcd as
> implicitly version 2 only. That's what I'm leaning to at the moment.
I think we should
On 16 Dec 2016, at 8:04 PM, debian wrote:
>
> Source: etcd
> Severity: wishlist
>
> Dear Maintainer,
>
> On https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/etcd I saw that a new upstream version is
> available: 3.0.15 - Is this possible to upgrade ?
Hi there. I've currently got someone working on a etcd3 pa
6 matches
Mail list logo