Re: Git migration schedule

Hi, these old SVN repos could be spared and removed: On 03.10.2015 20:52, Stefano Rivera wrote: > The errors: > > Cannot "git-dpm init" package: gamera is already in: git://anonscm.debian.org/python-modules/packages/gamera.git > Cannot "git-dpm init" package: nltk old/obsolete packaging, the

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

On 6 October 2015 at 01:51, Thomas Goirand wrote: > On 10/05/2015 09:37 AM, Michael Fladischer wrote: >> On 2015-09-30 10:53, Thomas Goirand wrote: >>> * The maintainer of mock uploaded version 1.3 to Sid, which created RC >>> bugs (FTBFS) on maybe more than 20 packages currently

How to convert a git repo to git-dpm

Hi, I would like to open a nice thread to discuss the "problem" of packages already managed in git, but not with git-dpm. To start the discussion, I'll describe how I did things and what I did to "convert" a repository. My usual way to use a repository is doing things like: gbp import-orig

Bug#801058: ITP: nbconvert -- Jupyter notebook conversion

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist X-Debbugs-CC: debian-python@lists.debian.org * Package name: nbconvert Version : 4.0.0 Upstream Author : Jupyter Development Team * URL : https://github.com/jupyter/nbconvert * License : BSD-3-clause Programming Lang: Python

Re: Git migration schedule

Hi Barry (2015.10.05_17:51:41_+0200) > >and other 9, for a grand total of 109 packages that cannot be > >converted to git, 13.5% of DPMT (oh, what about PAPT?) > > I've wondered about PAPT too. I don't touch those nearly as often, but > eventually yes, they should come under the same vcs regime,

Re: Git migration schedule

Hi IOhannes (2015.10.05_12:07:33_+0200) > >> sorry, i forgot to ask another question: how will the packages > >> already maintained in git be handled? > > > > Up to their maintainers (assuming they're following team > > standards). If people only have one git package, for testing, each, > > then

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

On 2015-09-30 10:53, Thomas Goirand wrote: > * The maintainer of mock uploaded version 1.3 to Sid, which created RC > bugs (FTBFS) on maybe more than 20 packages currently in Sid, even > though upstream (Robert Collins) is employed by HP and knew OpenStack > Kilo (currently in Sid) would break

Bug#800936: ITP: ipykernl -- IPython kernel for Jupyter

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist X-Debbugs-CC: debian-python@lists.debian.org * Package name: ipykernel Version : 4.0.3 Upstream Author : Jupyter Development Team * URL : https://github.com/ipython/ipykernel * License : BSD-3-clause Programming Lang: Python

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

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 gate. It is fixed in OpenStack Liberty though, > which I

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

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 >called >> on it. If you'd just reacted with something like

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

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 solution that helps ameliorate archive-wide breakages, and

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

On Oct 05, 2015, at 10:57 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote: >I agree that disabling package test suites doesn't improve their quality. >Were these bad tests? Did you report these issues upstream? Silently passing broken tests was one of a common pattern of issues I found when making Python 3.5

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

On Oct 05, 2015, at 09:16 PM, Mattia Rizzolo wrote: >Isn't this the whole point of unstable→testing? I guess, although it seems a lot of people run unstable so breakages affect more people. I run unstable on most of my Debian machines. I think almost nobody actually runs -proposed. Cheers,

Re: [DPMT] radical changes: automation, carrot and stick

On Sunday, October 04, 2015 11:54:18 PM Stefano Rivera wrote: >There's a fundamental question to ask here. Do we want to welcome Python >packages into the team, or do we want to put up barriers and require a >level of commitment before packages can be brought into the team? Thanks Stefano for

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

On Mon, Oct 05, 2015 at 05:11:26PM -0400, 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

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

On Monday, October 05, 2015 05:11:26 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

Re: Git migration schedule

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 >they'd prefer to use, they can move the migrated ones out the way, and >theirs back. But they have to

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

On Mon, Oct 05, 2015 at 05:26:38PM -0400, Barry Warsaw wrote: > On Oct 05, 2015, at 09:16 PM, Mattia Rizzolo wrote: > > >Isn't this the whole point of unstable→testing? > > I guess, although it seems a lot of people run unstable so breakages affect > more people. I run unstable on most of my

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

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, particularly mock >which is very widely used. I intensely

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

On 10/05/2015 04:57 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: > I agree that disabling package test suites doesn't improve their quality. That's not what I did, I blacklisted these unit tests which were failing, and kept all the others. As these unit tests were anyway broken, it doesn't mater much. > Were

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

On October 5, 2015 7:02:58 PM EDT, Thomas Goirand wrote: >On 10/06/2015 12:33 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote: >> Technically right, but socially wrong is wrong. > >I got that point, yes. > >> Reading that and what you >> wrote above, does that help you understand why I question

Re: Git migration schedule

On Tue, 6 Oct 2015 at 02:49 Barry Warsaw wrote: > Waiting longer isn't an option IMHO. It's helping to add to the > dysfunction > of the team. I will also offer to help if the 3.5 transition gets stuck > because of the git conversion. > Hurry up and break my packages :-) Do

Re: Git migration schedule

On Oct 05, 2015, at 10:32 PM, Stefano Rivera wrote: >Hi Barry (2015.10.05_17:51:41_+0200) >> >and other 9, for a grand total of 109 packages that cannot be >> >converted to git, 13.5% of DPMT (oh, what about PAPT?) >> >> I've wondered about PAPT too. I don't touch those nearly as often, but >>

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

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 called > on it. If you'd just reacted with something like "Oops, made a mistake, > I'll > revert it from svn and ask for it to be removed from

Re: Git migration schedule

On Oct 05, 2015, at 07:12 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote: >I did an update (not uploaded) of webob from this migration and it worked >perfectly. But it's a simple package without patches. I'll try a few more. Similarly for ply 3.8. The nice thing here is that there were several quilt patches that got

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

On Monday, October 05, 2015 11:45:57 PM Thomas Goirand wrote: > On 10/05/2015 04:57 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: ... > >> It is also to be noted that mock is maintained by upstream OpenStack > >> people (ie: Robert Collins), and therefore, should be released in Debian > >> at the same time as other

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

On 10/06/2015 12:33 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote: > Technically right, but socially wrong is wrong. I got that point, yes. > Reading that and what you > wrote above, does that help you understand why I question both your focus and > the sincerity of your expressions of regret. The words that I'm

Re: Git migration schedule

On Oct 03, 2015, at 08:52 PM, Stefano Rivera wrote: >So, here is a migration at r34461: >https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/python-modules/svn-migration/ I did an update (not uploaded) of webob from this migration and it worked perfectly. But it's a simple package without patches. I'll try a few

Re: Git migration schedule

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 2015-10-04 23:06, Stefano Rivera wrote: > Hi Sandro (2015.10.04_21:31:07_+0200) >> sorry, i forgot to ask another question: how will the packages >> already maintained in git be handled? > > Up to their maintainers (assuming they're following

Re: [DPMT] radical changes: automation, carrot and stick

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 2015-10-02 10:30, Piotr Ożarowski wrote: > it's 3 months to contribute to other packages (the ones where > you're not listed in Maintainer). hmm. if i - hypthotically, because i really currently do not - cared a so much about e.g. 30 DPMT

Re: [DPMT] radical changes: automation, carrot and stick

On Sunday, October 04, 2015 11:54:18 PM Stefano Rivera wrote: > This thread has had me thinking a bit. > > Hi Scott (2015.10.02_20:34:16_+0200) > > > Personally, I like the current approach where someone can either commit to > > either strong team maintainership (DPMT in maintainer) or weak team

Re: [DPMT] radical changes: automation, carrot and stick

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 2015-10-02 18:12, Nikolaus Rath wrote: > On Oct 02 2015, Piotr Ożarowski wrote: >> I think that the main problem of our team is that we have over >> 300 members and only few people contribute to packages they >> didn't inject

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

On 10/05/2015 09:37 AM, Michael Fladischer wrote: > On 2015-09-30 10:53, Thomas Goirand wrote: >> * The maintainer of mock uploaded version 1.3 to Sid, which created RC >> bugs (FTBFS) on maybe more than 20 packages currently in Sid, even >> though upstream (Robert Collins) is employed by HP and

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

On Monday, October 05, 2015 02:51:26 PM Thomas Goirand wrote: > On 10/05/2015 09:37 AM, Michael Fladischer wrote: > > On 2015-09-30 10:53, Thomas Goirand wrote: > >> * The maintainer of mock uploaded version 1.3 to Sid, which created RC > >> bugs (FTBFS) on maybe more than 20 packages currently in

Re: Git migration schedule

On Oct 04, 2015, at 08:03 PM, Sandro Tosi wrote: >am I the only one thinking it's quite a huge number to be handled by >hand? and whose hands will be the ones converting these packages? >yours or Barry's dont seem enough and others will need training/time. I'm happy to pitch in if a maintainer

Re: Git migration schedule

On Oct 04, 2015, at 08:31 PM, Sandro Tosi wrote: >sorry, i forgot to ask another question: how will the packages already >maintained in git be handled? It should be easy. Just push it to the team's vcs. If it's not already in git-dpm it's pretty easy to bootstrap. Essentially just one call to

Re: Git migration schedule

On Monday, October 05, 2015 11:49:01 AM Barry Warsaw wrote: > On Oct 04, 2015, at 08:03 PM, Sandro Tosi wrote: > >am I the only one thinking it's quite a huge number to be handled by > >hand? and whose hands will be the ones converting these packages? > >yours or Barry's dont seem enough and

Re: Git migration schedule

On Oct 03, 2015, at 08:52 PM, Stefano Rivera wrote: >No significant failures, but I wanted to setup an mr config, which I've done >now: >https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/python-modules/svn-migration/python-modules.git/ >The pkg-perl team has fancier tools, but they require more bookkeeping, so I

Re: Git migration schedule

On Oct 03, 2015, at 08:52 PM, Stefano Rivera wrote: >So, here is a migration at r34461: >https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/python-modules/svn-migration/ > >The errors: Some of these may already be in git, and hopefully git-dpm so don't actually need a conversion. If it's in git but not git-dpm,

Re: Git migration schedule

On Oct 04, 2015, at 08:03 PM, Sandro Tosi wrote: >and other 9, for a grand total of 109 packages that cannot be >converted to git, 13.5% of DPMT (oh, what about PAPT?) I've wondered about PAPT too. I don't touch those nearly as often, but eventually yes, they should come under the same vcs