Re: Accepted thermald 1.5.4-2.1 (source amd64) into testing-proposed-updates
On 2017-06-19 8:51, Colin Ian King wrote: Hi Adam, On 18/06/17 12:14, Adam D. Barratt wrote: On Wed, 2017-06-14 at 08:41 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote: What was the intent of this upload? If it was to try and get the updated package into the release, then a) it's (far) too late and b) it should have been discussed, not just uploaded to t-p-u. Ping? As you uploaded the package to t-p-u before the release, it has now ended up in proposed-updates. However, it is *still* unfixed in unstable. What's your plan for getting that sorted? We will not be including the package in a stretch point release until the fix is applied in unstable. I've double checked and the the version of thermald in unstable 1.6.0-3 contains this upstream fix, this landed in the 1.6.0 release of thermald: Then I'm very confused, and so is the BTS. :-) You filed #864707 with "Version: 1.6.0-3", which means that you told the BTS that the bug is present in that version. So far as the BTS is concerned, that bug is still open in unstable. If it is in fact fixed in unstable, then you want to do something like send "notfound 864707 1.6.0-3\nfixed 864707 1.6.0-1" to control@bugs.d.o. Regards, Adam
Re: Accepted thermald 1.5.4-2.1 (source amd64) into testing-proposed-updates
Hi Adam, On 18/06/17 12:14, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > On Wed, 2017-06-14 at 08:41 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote: >> What was the intent of this upload? If it was to try and get the updated >> package into the release, then a) it's (far) too late and b) it should >> have been discussed, not just uploaded to t-p-u. > > Ping? > > As you uploaded the package to t-p-u before the release, it has now > ended up in proposed-updates. > > However, it is *still* unfixed in unstable. What's your plan for getting > that sorted? We will not be including the package in a stretch point > release until the fix is applied in unstable. I've double checked and the the version of thermald in unstable 1.6.0-3 contains this upstream fix, this landed in the 1.6.0 release of thermald: commit 5f1be4d9d6f3b27d2c9884f833ca05cdcb4428e0 Author: Srinivas Pandruvada Date: Fri Mar 3 22:19:25 2017 -0800 Update release number (this was to 1.6.0) commit 91a53d8b7789f45727b7349c8390ff16cc760958 Author: Srinivas Pandruvada Date: Fri Mar 3 22:09:25 2017 -0800 Remove deprecated files commit 405dcc0a6464d92e656789a5a76bb23f479975ea Author: Srinivas Pandruvada Date: Fri Mar 3 21:40:45 2017 -0800 Add Kabylake and Broadwell-GT processor models (the fix in question) Colin > > (As a side note, given that you are the maintainer of the package, why > was the upload version -2.1?) Good point. My fail > > Regards, > > Adam Colin >
Re: Accepted thermald 1.5.4-2.1 (source amd64) into testing-proposed-updates
On Wed, 2017-06-14 at 08:41 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > What was the intent of this upload? If it was to try and get the updated > package into the release, then a) it's (far) too late and b) it should > have been discussed, not just uploaded to t-p-u. Ping? As you uploaded the package to t-p-u before the release, it has now ended up in proposed-updates. However, it is *still* unfixed in unstable. What's your plan for getting that sorted? We will not be including the package in a stretch point release until the fix is applied in unstable. (As a side note, given that you are the maintainer of the package, why was the upload version -2.1?) Regards, Adam
Re: Accepted thermald 1.5.4-2.1 (source amd64) into testing-proposed-updates
Hi, On 2017-06-13 16:03, Colin King wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Format: 1.8 Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 15:23:11 +0100 Source: thermald Binary: thermald Architecture: source amd64 Version: 1.5.4-2.1 Distribution: stretch Urgency: medium Maintainer: Colin King Changed-By: Colin King Description: thermald - Thermal monitoring and controlling daemon Closes: 864707 Changes: thermald (1.5.4-2.1) stretch; urgency=medium What was the intent of this upload? If it was to try and get the updated package into the release, then a) it's (far) too late and b) it should have been discussed, not just uploaded to t-p-u. If, otoh, this was intended for p-u after the release then a) it's far too early and b) as above, please follow the usual p-u bug and discussion process, don't simply upload. Regards, Adam
