Re: Restoring old package version

2017-01-11 Thread Sean Whitton
On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 05:54:52PM +0100, Adam Borowski wrote: > 2. 0.9.1-really-0.7.0-1 -- fugly but will go away once 0.9 stabilizes. This is ingenious. Thanks for sharing. -- Sean Whitton signature.asc Description: PGP signature

Re: Restoring old package version

2017-01-11 Thread Ross Vandegrift
On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 05:09:10PM +0100, Mattia Rizzolo wrote: > terminology doesn't seem to be affected by any RC bug. What are you > talking about? Oh you're right, I messed up - I thought 848370 was severity serious, but it's only important. Thanks, Ross signature.asc Description: PGP

Re: Restoring old package version

2017-01-11 Thread Adam Borowski
On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 05:09:10PM +0100, Mattia Rizzolo wrote: > On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 10:48:58AM -0500, Ross Vandegrift wrote: > > In [1], it says to upload the > > old version. I'm not clear on what I need to do - should I open > > an RFS with the old version from snapshot.d.o? > > That

Re: Restoring old package version

2017-01-11 Thread Mattia Rizzolo
On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 10:48:58AM -0500, Ross Vandegrift wrote: > terminology was affected by the RC bugs flooding issue mentioned in the > recent email on the Strech freeze status. terminology doesn't seem to be affected by any RC bug. What are you talking about? > In [1], it says to upload