Bug#766461: gitg: upload 3.22 to unstable
On Tue, 8 Nov 2016 01:42:03 +0100 Michael Bieblwrote: > On Fri, 14 Oct 2016 19:51:47 +0200 =?utf-8?b?SsOpcsOpbXkgTGFs?= > wrote: > > Package: gitg > > Followup-For: Bug #766461 > > > > Hi Dmitry, > > > > just a few words to say that i'm having an incredibly good > > user experience with gitg 3.22. > > It's fast, it's packed with wonderful features (uncomparably > > better than old 0.2.7 version) and upstream seems to be > > going in a very pragmatic direction. > > If you need any help maintaining libgit2-glib/gitg, please > > do not hesitate to ask. > > > > I can only second this. I find the new interface much more pleasant. > > Dmitry, it would be great if you can upload this version to unstable. > > What can we do to move this forward? > I don't think it makes sense to block new upstream releases forever > because of personal disagreements on what upstream is doing. > At some point, Dmitry, you have to fork gitg and maybe ship it as > gitg-legacy. > > It would be a shame if we shipped stretch with a horribly outdated > version of gitg. I agree with Michael and Jeremy. gitg 0.2.x was uploaded more than 3 years ago and 3.x has been cooking in experimental for more than 2. Upstream has done tremendous efforts to make the software usable again and with 3.22, I cannot see any reason to keep 0.2.x supported for yet another 2 years, really. Unless, we still want to feed the trolls who associate Debian with significantly outdated software. Thanks for considering our request, Ghis
Bug#766461: gitg: upload 3.22 to unstable
On Fri, 14 Oct 2016 19:51:47 +0200 =?utf-8?b?SsOpcsOpbXkgTGFs?=wrote: > Package: gitg > Followup-For: Bug #766461 > > Hi Dmitry, > > just a few words to say that i'm having an incredibly good > user experience with gitg 3.22. > It's fast, it's packed with wonderful features (uncomparably > better than old 0.2.7 version) and upstream seems to be > going in a very pragmatic direction. > If you need any help maintaining libgit2-glib/gitg, please > do not hesitate to ask. > I can only second this. I find the new interface much more pleasant. Dmitry, it would be great if you can upload this version to unstable. What can we do to move this forward? I don't think it makes sense to block new upstream releases forever because of personal disagreements on what upstream is doing. At some point, Dmitry, you have to fork gitg and maybe ship it as gitg-legacy. It would be a shame if we shipped stretch with a horribly outdated version of gitg. Michael -- Why is it that all of the instruments seeking intelligent life in the universe are pointed away from Earth? signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#766461: gitg: upload 3.22 to unstable
Package: gitg Followup-For: Bug #766461 Hi Dmitry, just a few words to say that i'm having an incredibly good user experience with gitg 3.22. It's fast, it's packed with wonderful features (uncomparably better than old 0.2.7 version) and upstream seems to be going in a very pragmatic direction. If you need any help maintaining libgit2-glib/gitg, please do not hesitate to ask. Jérémy -- System Information: Debian Release: stretch/sid APT prefers unstable APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (500, 'testing'), (1, 'experimental') Architecture: amd64 (x86_64) Kernel: Linux 4.6.0-1-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU cores) Locale: LANG=fr_FR.utf8, LC_CTYPE=fr_FR.utf8 (charmap=UTF-8) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system) Versions of packages gitg depends on: ii dbus-x11 1.10.12-1 ii dconf-gsettings-backend [gsettings-backend] 0.26.0-2 ii gir1.2-peas-1.0 1.20.0-1 ii git 1:2.9.3-1 ii gsettings-desktop-schemas3.22.0-1 ii libc62.24-3 ii libcairo21.14.6-1+b1 ii libgdk-pixbuf2.0-0 2.36.0-1 ii libgee-0.8-2 0.18.1-1 ii libgirepository-1.0-11.50.0-1 ii libgit2-glib-1.0-0 0.24.4-1 ii libglib2.0-0 2.50.1-1 ii libgtk-3-0 3.22.1-1 ii libgtksourceview-3.0-1 3.22.0-1 ii libgtkspell3-3-0 3.0.9-1 ii libpango-1.0-0 1.40.3-2 ii libpeas-1.0-01.20.0-1 ii libsecret-1-00.18.5-2 ii libsoup2.4-1 2.56.0-1 ii libxml2 2.9.4+dfsg1-2 gitg recommends no packages. gitg suggests no packages. -- no debconf information