Re: managing transitions

On Tue, Oct 06, 2015 at 04:03:54PM +0200, Thomas Goirand wrote: > On 10/06/2015 01:02 PM, Mattia Rizzolo wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 06, 2015 at 08:39:48AM +, Brian May wrote: > >> On Tue, 6 Oct 2015 at 18:46 Thomas Goirand wrote: > >> > >>> This IMO is the same topic as having a

Re: managing transitions (was: python-networkx_1.10-1_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into experimental)

On Oct 06, 2015, at 08:39 AM, Brian May wrote: >On Tue, 6 Oct 2015 at 18:46 Thomas Goirand wrote: > >> This IMO is the same topic as having a Gerrit review system (and not >> just Git) which could do tests on each change of a package even before >> having them committed to our

Re: mock 1.2 breaking tests (was: python-networkx_1.10-1_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into experimental)

On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 8:53 AM, Jeremy Stanley wrote: > On 2015-10-06 09:28:56 +0200 (+0200), Thomas Goirand wrote: >> Master != kilo. It still means that I have to do all of the backport >> work by myself. > [...] >> I know that it's the common assumption that, as the package

Re: managing transitions

On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 1:11 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote: > On Oct 06, 2015, at 07:05 PM, Thomas Goirand wrote: > >>Interesting. It's the first time I hear about it, I thought it was just >>closed source. > > The instance at gitlab.com is the non-free Enterprise Edition (EE). EE has

Re: managing transitions

On Oct 06, 2015, at 07:05 PM, Thomas Goirand wrote: >Interesting. It's the first time I hear about it, I thought it was just >closed source. The instance at gitlab.com is the non-free Enterprise Edition (EE). EE has features we probably don't care about ayway. The Community Edition (CE) is

Re: managing transitions

On Oct 06, 2015, at 03:12 PM, Fred Drake wrote: >What CI tools are you using with GitLab CE? We don't run CE; we use the hosted EE at gitlab.com. But anyway, we have a custom VM on which we run the GitLab runner software in a docker image. This runs our test suite in all supported Python 3s

Re: python-networkx_1.10-1_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into experimental

On 10/06/2015 02:12 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote: > As I said up thread, I think a break from the team will be helpful for you to > re-engage productively. I wrote it to you privately. You can't just tell that it's going to be a temporary ban, without giving a timeline. You avoided to answer my

Re: python-networkx_1.10-1_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into experimental

On 10/05/2015 11:17 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote: > On Oct 06, 2015, at 07:00 AM, Robert Collins wrote: > >> The things you listed that I help maintain - mock, testtools, etc - >> are *not* OpenStack specific. They existed before OpenStack, and >> likely will exist after. They have other users,

Re: mock 1.2 breaking tests (was: python-networkx_1.10-1_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into experimental)

On 10/06/2015 02:49 AM, Jeremy Stanley wrote: > On 2015-10-05 23:45:57 +0200 (+0200), Thomas Goirand wrote: > [...] >> Upstream will *not* fix the issue, because you know, they "fixed" it in >> their CI by adding an upper version bound in the pip requirements, which >> is fine for them in the

Re: Git migration schedule

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 2015-10-05 23:24, Barry Warsaw wrote: > On Oct 05, 2015, at 10:36 PM, Stefano Rivera wrote: > >> How about: We move away existing repositories, and put the >> migrated ones in the /packages/ path. If people have existing >> repositories, that

Re: How to convert a git repo to git-dpm

Hi, Le 05/10/2015 20:27, Julien Puydt a écrit : (3) git-dpm init ../foo_version.orig.tar.gz (start using git-dpm) That point takes actually longer, because one needs to have the tarball around ; this is now wishlist bug #801086 against git-dpm (

Re: python-networkx_1.10-1_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into experimental

On 10/06/2015 06:21 PM, Piotr Ożarowski wrote: >> I probably have more Python modules in my QA page than all the persons >> involved in this thread... *combined*! No, it's not a competition, and > > it's about quantity and not about quality then? I prefer to have more > maintainers with few

Re: python-networkx_1.10-1_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into experimental

[Thomas Goirand, 2015-10-06] > On 10/06/2015 06:21 PM, Piotr Ożarowski wrote: > >> I probably have more Python modules in my QA page than all the persons > >> involved in this thread... *combined*! No, it's not a competition, and > > > > it's about quantity and not about quality then? I prefer to

Re: managing transitions (was: python-networkx_1.10-1_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into experimental)

On 10/05/2015 11:11 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote: > On Oct 05, 2015, at 02:51 PM, Thomas Goirand wrote: > >> In other distributions (Red Hat and Ubuntu), everyone is aware of this >> kind of issue before uploading, and this kinds of things don't happen. > > Ubuntu at least does have a technical

Re: python-networkx_1.10-1_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into experimental

Thomas Goirand writes: > You can't write this: > > On 10/06/2015 12:33 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote: > > causes me to doubt the sincerity of this. > > and this: > > On 10/06/2015 02:12 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote: > > I don't think you're intentionally malicious. > > a few hours

Re: managing transitions (was: python-networkx_1.10-1_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into experimental)

On Tue, 6 Oct 2015 at 18:46 Thomas Goirand wrote: > This IMO is the same topic as having a Gerrit review system (and not > just Git) which could do tests on each change of a package even before > having them committed to our git. > Sounds like an interesting thing to

Re: python-networkx_1.10-1_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into experimental

You can't write this: On 10/06/2015 12:33 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote: > causes me to doubt the sincerity of this. and this: On 10/06/2015 02:12 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote: > I don't think you're intentionally malicious. a few hours apart, and get away with it. Take your pick... am I an evil liar

Re: managing transitions (was: python-networkx_1.10-1_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into experimental)

On Tue, Oct 06, 2015 at 08:39:48AM +, Brian May wrote: > On Tue, 6 Oct 2015 at 18:46 Thomas Goirand wrote: > > > This IMO is the same topic as having a Gerrit review system (and not > > just Git) which could do tests on each change of a package even before > > having them

Re: python-networkx_1.10-1_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into experimental

On 10/06/2015 01:43 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: > On Tuesday, October 06, 2015 09:24:42 AM Thomas Goirand wrote: >> On 10/06/2015 02:12 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote: >>> As I said up thread, I think a break from the team will be helpful for you >>> to re-engage productively. >> I wrote it to you

Re: python-networkx_1.10-1_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into experimental

(I was asked not to reply anymore, and I was doing it quite happily, but since it involves a private conversation between Thomas and me, I need to step in) >> I think that generally when one transgresses on someone else's package in a >> way the maintainer doesn't like it's the responsibility of

Re: python-networkx_1.10-1_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into experimental

On 10/06/2015 03:31 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote: > > > On October 5, 2015 8:42:40 PM EDT, Brian May > wrote: >> On Tue, 6 Oct 2015 at 09:33 Scott Kitterman >> wrote: >> >>> Except in this case you not only didn't but then got defensive when

Re: python-networkx_1.10-1_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into experimental

On Tuesday, October 06, 2015 09:24:42 AM Thomas Goirand wrote: > On 10/06/2015 02:12 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote: > > As I said up thread, I think a break from the team will be helpful for you > > to re-engage productively. > I wrote it to you privately. You can't just tell that it's going to be a >

Re: managing transitions

On 10/06/2015 01:02 PM, Mattia Rizzolo wrote: > On Tue, Oct 06, 2015 at 08:39:48AM +, Brian May wrote: >> On Tue, 6 Oct 2015 at 18:46 Thomas Goirand wrote: >> >>> This IMO is the same topic as having a Gerrit review system (and not >>> just Git) which could do tests on each

Re: mock 1.2 breaking tests (was: python-networkx_1.10-1_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into experimental)

On 2015-10-06 09:28:56 +0200 (+0200), Thomas Goirand wrote: > Master != kilo. It still means that I have to do all of the backport > work by myself. [...] > I know that it's the common assumption that, as the package maintainer > in Debian, I should volunteer to fix any issue in the 6+ million

Re: python-networkx_1.10-1_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into experimental

[Thomas Goirand, 2015-10-06] > You're still avoiding to answer what are the conditions for me to get > back in the team. he did answer and I did as well (see my first private email to you). One more time: you were removed from the team because you promise to change behaviour and then repeat the

Re: managing transitions

On 10/06/2015 05:42 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote: > On Oct 06, 2015, at 08:39 AM, Brian May wrote: > >> On Tue, 6 Oct 2015 at 18:46 Thomas Goirand wrote: >> >>> This IMO is the same topic as having a Gerrit review system (and not >>> just Git) which could do tests on each change of a

Re: mock 1.2 breaking tests

On 10/06/2015 05:26 PM, Ian Cordasco wrote: > On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 8:53 AM, Jeremy Stanley wrote: >> On 2015-10-06 09:28:56 +0200 (+0200), Thomas Goirand wrote: >>> Master != kilo. It still means that I have to do all of the backport >>> work by myself. >> [...] >>> I know