* Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org [120426 02:08]:
Thanks for the information, I thought it was obsoleted when the closing of
bugs
became versionned.
Before closing become versioned, the situation was more complex:
Before, a upload of a .changes would behave differently depending
whether
On Thu, 26 Apr 2012, gregor herrmann wrote:
On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 09:33:31 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
Talking about improvements, if the following part about NMU acknowledgement
is
obsolete as I think, how about removing it, either as a separate bug, or as
part of the general refresh
Le Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 04:19:50PM -0700, Don Armstrong a écrit :
On Thu, 26 Apr 2012, gregor herrmann wrote:
On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 09:33:31 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
Talking about improvements, if the following part about NMU
acknowledgement is
obsolete as I think, how about
On Thu, 26 Apr 2012, Charles Plessy wrote:
Le Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 04:19:50PM -0700, Don Armstrong a écrit :
Yes, that's still how the BTS works. Otherwise, the MU is a
descendant of the previous MU instead of the NMU. You can
alternatively just include the changelog entries from the NMU
Le Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 05:38:11PM -0700, Don Armstrong a écrit :
Versioning is a directed acyclic graph. Each version has at most one
ancestor, though it may have many descendants. When you upload a
maintainer upload (MU) without including the NMU changelog entry, you
are indicating that
Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org writes:
I am still confused. Does the discussed paragraph mean that the whole
NMU changelog entry has to be still present in the changelog, just under
the latest entry, or that they have to be closed again in the latest
entry ?
Either one will work for
On Monday, April 23, 2012 18:54:41, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
On 23/04/12 at 17:24 -0400, Chris Knadle wrote:
Oops... sending again, as I forgot to CC: the developer's reference team.
On Monday, April 23, 2012 16:26:59, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
Hi,
On 23/04/12 at 14:56 -0400, Chris
On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 12:34:00 -0400, Chris Knadle wrote:
For instance, say a potential maintainer picks up an old package to do an NMU
on, and updates the version of debhelper from v5 to v8, switches from 1.0
format to 3.0 quilt format, and likewise has to make numerous other similar
tweaks
Le Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 02:01:48AM +0200, gregor herrmann a écrit :
On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 12:34:00 -0400, Chris Knadle wrote:
For instance, say a potential maintainer picks up an old package to do an
NMU
on, and updates the version of debhelper from v5 to v8, switches from 1.0
format
Greetings.
I would like your consideration as to whether to update Section 5.11.1 of the
Developer's Reference to incorporate some of the views of Stefano Zacchiroli
concerning When and how to do an NMU. [1]
For background as to why this came up, there's recently been discussion about
Hi,
On 23/04/12 at 14:56 -0400, Chris Knadle wrote:
Greetings.
I would like your consideration as to whether to update Section 5.11.1 of the
Developer's Reference to incorporate some of the views of Stefano Zacchiroli
concerning When and how to do an NMU. [1]
For background as to why
Oops... sending again, as I forgot to CC: the developer's reference team.
On Monday, April 23, 2012 16:26:59, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
Hi,
On 23/04/12 at 14:56 -0400, Chris Knadle wrote:
Greetings.
I would like your consideration as to whether to update Section 5.11.1 of
the Developer's
On 23/04/12 at 17:24 -0400, Chris Knadle wrote:
Oops... sending again, as I forgot to CC: the developer's reference team.
On Monday, April 23, 2012 16:26:59, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
Hi,
On 23/04/12 at 14:56 -0400, Chris Knadle wrote:
Greetings.
I would like your consideration as
13 matches
Mail list logo
