On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 03:49:15PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
As a consequence, I propose the following wording for the paragraph of
developers-reference about that:
snip
beginning of release cycles), the lower release number higher
^
On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 10:20:44AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
on http://dep.debian.net, using the same license as DEP0, but
dep.debian.net is down currently, so I can't check what the license is
:)
dep.debian.net was just an alias for http://dep.alioth.debian.org. I
don't know what happened
pe, 2008-09-05 kello 10:00 +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli kirjoitti:
On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 10:20:44AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
on http://dep.debian.net, using the same license as DEP0, but
dep.debian.net is down currently, so I can't check what the license is
:)
dep.debian.net was just
On Friday 22 August 2008 15:49, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
Conclusion: we need a way to version stable/testing uploads that avoids
this.
While I'm not convinced that it's a pressing issue that needs resolving, if
people badly want it I'll use the new system.
I think that instead, we should use
On 21/08/08 at 02:09 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 06:20:47PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 18:33:01 -0300, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
The change is needed, since the BTS needs to know if the bugs are closed
in that version or not.
Could you
On 19/08/08 at 21:20 +0200, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
If you upload a package to testing or stable, you sometimes need
to fork the version number tree. This is the case for security
uploads, for example. For this, a version of the form +debXYuZ
should be used, where X is the
On 20/08/08 at 17:15 +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
Lucas Nussbaum [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi,
After a long delay, here is a final call for reviews and comments for
DEP1.
Hi! A meta-issue: It would be nice if your DEP1 was freely licensed. I
didn't see a license statement in your
On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 01:33:16PM +0200, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
That has the drawback of not notifying the maintainer explicitly directly
after (or even before) the upload.
But perhaps we need another mechanism to signal this. Consecutive uploads to
the same distribution should not cause
On Thu, August 21, 2008 10:33, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 01:33:16PM +0200, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
But perhaps we need another mechanism to signal this. Consecutive
uploads to the same distribution should not cause previously present
version entries to disappear from the
Le Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 10:56:14AM +0200, Thijs Kinkhorst a écrit :
My concept of the package changelog is to give a chronological account of
the changes that happened to the package.
Hi Thijs,
isn't it anyway impossible to represent linearly the life tree of a
package? Imagine that the
On Wed, August 20, 2008 14:14, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
Say stable and testing have 1.0-1. Sid has 1.0-2.
stable-security has 1.0-1+etch1 The maintainer wants to upload something to
t-p-u. If we had a codename that sorted before etch we would be screwed.
I don't think we're screwed, rather that
On 21/08/2008, at 8:56 PM, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
My concept of the package changelog is to give a chronological
account of
the changes that happened to the package.
Right...
What is the problem with documenting which versions were actually
present
in the archive?
That it conflicts
On Tue, 19 Aug 2008, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
The past weeks I had several encounters with the situation that a maintainer
completely overlooked and NMU and uploaded a newer version without
acknowledging the previous NMU, thereby reintroducing the problem the NMU
addressed. This happened to
ke, 2008-08-20 kello 09:38 +0200, Raphael Hertzog kirjoitti:
The maintainer is still king and if he decides that the NMU was not a good
idea, he would have no other choice than skipping a revision in the
changelog. That would be confusing.
It would, however, make things a bit more explicit
On 20/08/08 at 09:38 +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
On Tue, 19 Aug 2008, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
The past weeks I had several encounters with the situation that a
maintainer
completely overlooked and NMU and uploaded a newer version without
acknowledging the previous NMU, thereby
On Wednesday 20 August 2008 10:06, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
On 20/08/08 at 09:38 +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
On Tue, 19 Aug 2008, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
The past weeks I had several encounters with the situation that a
maintainer completely overlooked and NMU and uploaded a newer version
On Wed, 20 Aug 2008, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
But perhaps we need another mechanism to signal this. Consecutive uploads to
the same distribution should not cause previously present version entries to
disappear from the changelog. Maybe the archive can reject an upload that
misses a changelog
Lucas Nussbaum [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi,
After a long delay, here is a final call for reviews and comments for
DEP1.
Hi! A meta-issue: It would be nice if your DEP1 was freely licensed. I
didn't see a license statement in your text, could one be added?
Thanks,
/Simon
--
To
On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 07:35:51PM -0400, Felipe Sateler wrote:
Raphael Hertzog wrote:
It works well except when the same package version is in two consecutive
release.
1.0-1+sarge1 1.0-1+etch1 when we really want the opposite. That's why
this scheme was invented. I agree that it's not
Hi,
Sorry for breaking the thread and chiming in late, I was until recently not
aware of this thread and not subscribed to debian-project. I hope my comments
can still be considered.
The version must be the version of the last upload, plus +nmuX,
This special versioning is needed to
On 15/08/08 at 22:59 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 01:22:28AM -0300, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
o Upload fixing only release-critical bugs older than 7 days:
2 days
o Upload fixing only release-critical and important bugs: 5
days
On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 18:33:01 -0300, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
The change is needed, since the BTS needs to know if the bugs are closed
in that version or not.
Could you propose an alternative wording for the following paragraph?
para
When a package has been NMUed, the maintainer should
On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 01:22:28AM -0300, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
o Upload fixing only release-critical bugs older than 7 days:
2 days
o Upload fixing only release-critical and important bugs: 5
days
o Other NMUs: 10 days
Not consistent with my
Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No, it hasn't. It is used naturally for indeterminates. Using it for
singulars sounds stilted and contrived. The developer is clearly not
an indeterminate.
It's a single person with indeterminate gender, which is
On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 09:00:25AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
I'm disappointed if the docs have been patched quietly to expand the
singular they bug. There's almost no need for it. When reasonably
possible, please phrase things in such a way to avoid assuming gender,
or switch some examples. We
On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 11:35 AM, Michael Banck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think it is reasonable to first fix the bug (no gender neutrality)
When you use http://code.google.com/ in combination with obscene language
you find a lot of code comments that found their way into debian packages.
How
On Thu, 14 Aug 2008, MJ Ray wrote:
Even so, why should language style be a weight-of-numbers thing?
Interestingly, that's exactly what language and style is about.
English is plastic, and as the usage of people who use english
changes, so does the language and its style.
Don Armstrong
--
On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 04:28:36PM +0200, Luipher Fhang wrote:
On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 11:35 AM, Michael Banck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think it is reasonable to first fix the bug (no gender neutrality)
When you use http://code.google.com/ in combination with obscene language
you find a
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 07:28:53PM -0300, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
Before doing an NMU, consider the following questions:
o Do you really fix bugs in your NMU? Fixing cosmetic issues,
or changing the packaging style in NMUs is discouraged,
unless it is required to fix bugs.
On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 09:00:25AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
This was covered in a thread around
http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2005/01/msg00360.html
This thread seems to establish that you're in a small minority with this
opinion.
Well, I was using it to give a reasonable
On 14/08/08 at 10:58 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 07:28:53PM -0300, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
Before doing an NMU, consider the following questions:
o Do you really fix bugs in your NMU? Fixing cosmetic issues,
or changing the packaging style in NMUs is
Ben Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Roberto C. Sánchez [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 08:16:56PM -0300, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
The whole developers-reference is written in a non-gender-neutral
manner. If there's consensus that it's a good idea, I would prefer
if the
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
However, balance of examples and judicious use of one and a
developer would be better than butchering the English language and
making the document more confusing by using they to stand for a
definite singular quantity without context.
They has been used for
Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
However, balance of examples and judicious use of one and a
developer would be better than butchering the English language and
making the document more confusing by using they to stand for a
definite singular quantity
On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 11:21:09AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
However, balance of examples and judicious use of one and a
developer would be better than butchering the English language and
making the document more
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No, it hasn't. It is used naturally for indeterminates. Using it for
singulars sounds stilted and contrived. The developer is clearly not
an indeterminate.
It's a single person with indeterminate gender, which is exactly the use
case for the epicene they.
On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 11:16:44AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
This thread seems to establish that you're in a small minority with this
opinion.
I'll weigh in on MJ's side and also concede that it's a small minority,
unfortunately.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject
Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It's a single person with indeterminate gender, which is exactly the use
case for the epicene they. I believe you're simply wrong here. This
supposedly stilted and contrived construct routinely goes unremarked and
unnoticed by native English speakers
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 02:14:06AM -0300, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
After that, we can have a discussion about:
- Should people be encouraged to commit the changes they make in an NMU
to the package's Vcs?
- Should people be encouraged to commit any
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 08:20:46AM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
How about just sneak in a recommendation to check debian/README.Source
for any hints about specific packaging routines to be aware of?
Nice idea, as it would address any other potential hints from
maintainers to NMUers, possibly
Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
I'm interested both in ACKs and suggestions for changes.
I second the proposal (I like better if you include the
Jonas proposal about README.source).
ciao
cate
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL
* Lucas Nussbaum [Mon, 11 Aug 2008 19:28:53 -0300]:
The version must be the version of the last upload, plus +nmuX,
I already objected to this in the past, and I'm loudly objecting again
now. Some people on IRC shared this objection; I'm opening a subthread
to see if I'm alone on this, or
* Lucas Nussbaum [Mon, 11 Aug 2008 19:28:53 -0300]:
Hi, these are some other, mostly minor bits:
The version must be the version of the last upload, plus +nmuX,
where X is a counter starting at 1. If the last upload was also
an NMU, the counter should be increased. For example, if
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 08:37:17PM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote:
The version must be the version of the last upload, plus +nmuX,
I already objected to this in the past, and I'm loudly objecting again
now. Some people on IRC shared this objection; I'm opening a subthread
to see if I'm alone
* Stefano Zacchiroli [Tue, 12 Aug 2008 17:18:40 -0300]:
In addition, it has the advantage of being clearer,
And the disadvantage of being less compact. Who do we /need/ to make it
clearer for? Who that wouldn't be familiar with the old syntax could
/benefit/ from this explicitness?
(In the old
On Tue, 12 Aug 2008, Adeodato Simó wrote:
* Lucas Nussbaum [Mon, 11 Aug 2008 19:28:53 -0300]:
The version must be the version of the last upload, plus +nmuX,
I already objected to this in the past, and I'm loudly objecting again
now. Some people on IRC shared this objection; I'm
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 10:33:47PM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote:
And the disadvantage of being less compact.
len('1.2.3-1+nmu1') - len('1.2.3-1.1') = 3
len('1:1.0.rc2svn20080706-0.1') - len('1.2.3-1') = 17
are we really discussing the disadvantages of *3* extra characters when
we have version
On 12/08/08 at 20:44 +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote:
* Lucas Nussbaum [Mon, 11 Aug 2008 19:28:53 -0300]:
Hi, these are some other, mostly minor bits:
The version must be the version of the last upload, plus +nmuX,
where X is a counter starting at 1. If the last upload was also
an
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 08:16:56PM -0300, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
The whole developers-reference is written in a non-gender-neutral
manner. If there's consensus that it's a good idea, I would prefer if
the whole devref was converted at once, instead of converting only this
part.
Any
Roberto C. Sánchez [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 08:16:56PM -0300, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
The whole developers-reference is written in a non-gender-neutral
manner. If there's consensus that it's a good idea, I would prefer
if the whole devref was converted at once,
Hi,
After a long delay, here is a final call for reviews and comments for
DEP1. I've wrote it as a patch to developers-reference, and extracted
the relevant part on:
http://people.debian.org/~lucas/nmudep/pkgs.html
If you prefer to read the diff, go to:
Le Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 07:28:53PM -0300, Lucas Nussbaum a écrit :
After a long delay, here is a final call for reviews and comments for
DEP1.
Hi Lucas,
First of all, since we already dedicated a lot of time to find
compromise on the text, let me make clear that I do not object to it,
that
On 12/08/08 at 10:06 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
Le Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 07:28:53PM -0300, Lucas Nussbaum a écrit :
After a long delay, here is a final call for reviews and comments for
DEP1.
Hi Lucas,
First of all, since we already dedicated a lot of time to find
compromise on
53 matches
Mail list logo
