Re: Request Access to Salsa
On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 09:01:48AM +0100, Thomas Goirand wrote: > On 11/21/18 12:23 AM, Per Andersson wrote: > > Hi! > > > > I would like to join the Debian Python team on Salsa in order to > > maintain python module python-sqlalchemy-migrate (ITP) [0]. Even though sqlalchemy-migrate is already packaged I would like to join the application and modules teams on Salsa. I was a member on Alioth. :-) > As I wrote in your ITP bug, this packabge has been in Debian for many years: > https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/migrate Thanks! Sorry for not looking hard enough before filing the ITP. > This is maintained in the OpenStack team because upstream is OpenStack > since Jan Dittberner stopped working on it, and because it's used mainly > in OpenStack. However, I would recommend against using it, as upstream > is trying to get rid of it in the favor or Alembic. It's just there for > historic reasons. I understand, new versions of pytrainer depend on sqlalchemy-migrate so I'll deal with it. -- Per
Re: packaging django-rest-framework-filters
[Wookey, 2018-11-22] > No advice on best way to start a python packaging template? # apt install pypi2deb $ py2dsp djangorestframework-filters source package will be available in ./result/ (change it with --root) you can add '--profile dpmt' if you want to maintain it inside DPMT -- GPG: 1D2F A898 58DA AF62 1786 2DF7 AEF6 F1A2 A745 7645
Re: packaging django-rest-framework-filters
On 2018-11-22 08:59 +0100, Thomas Goirand wrote: > On 11/22/18 6:02 AM, Wookey wrote: No advice on best way to start a python packaging template? > > And it looks like it should be called src:drf-filters > > binary:python3-djangoresetframework-filters to fit in with naming > > conventions of related packages/python team (even though upstream is > > 'django-rest-framework-filters'). Right? > > The binary package name is right, though there's no convention for the > source package naming. "drf-filters" doesn't feel very descriptive to me > though. I agree, but I took it from drf-extensions -> python3-djangorestframework-extensions drf-generators -> python3-djangorestframework-generators drf-haystack -> python3-djangorestframework-haystack on the other hand there is: djangorestframework-gis -> python3-djangorestframework-gis I don't care which is used. I guess djangorestframework-filters is clearer, and closer to upstream so people can find it. I'll go with that unless someone says the drf-* names are a better plan. > > Also related: I've updated drf-extensions to 0.4 (from the current > > 0.3.1), as that is needed for lava, and fixes > > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=865851 > > > > What I'm not quite sure about is if there is any reason _not_ to > > update this package. It has no reverse dependencies so I presume this > > is a good idea and I should just get on with it? would a 10-day NMU be > > appropriate? > > If you join the team, I see no reason why you couldn't do the upgrade > yourself indeed, especially if you do a 10-day NMU on it. So I need to join the team to do anything in the salsa repos? I don't claim any real python extertise (I can just about read it - I try to avoid writing it as I'm a bash, perl and C person). I would prefer to sort this out to a decent standard and then hand it over the python team for maintenance, but I can join up as a minor conributor if that works better. It occurs to me that you probably prefer me to do this as a branch in the drf-extensions salsa repo, rather than a simple NMU? I prefer the latter as I know how to do that (sbuild+dupload), but if I have the permissions I can have a go at this newfangled git-pq + salsa stuff. I presume that'll be less work for you guys and I suppose I'll learn something :-) Wookey -- Principal hats: Linaro, Debian, Wookware, ARM http://wookware.org/ signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Request to join PAPT (Was: Bug#914230: ITP: git-imerge -- incremental merge and rebase for git)
Dear Ondrej, > I don't see any merge requests for PAPT. Mea culpa; I misread this as DPMT as you have inferred. > I think it's better to do smaller changes/merge request. mwei, can you > split it to more smaller merge requests please? I would obviously heartily endorse this philosophy but I wonder that for expediency and to correct the now long-incorrect information I suggest we adjust our tolerance here. However, Mwei please do indeed split these into smaller MRs or commits. Best wishes, -- ,''`. : :' : Chris Lamb `. `'` la...@debian.org / chris-lamb.co.uk `-
Re: Request to join PAPT (Was: Bug#914230: ITP: git-imerge -- incremental merge and rebase for git)
Hi, čt 22. 11. 2018 v 10:47 odesílatel Chris Lamb napsal: > > It turns out policy.rst is lying, I don't have permission to create a > > repository. Therefore I would like to request to join PAPT, please (and > > accept the policy even in spite of its lies). > > Python team, can we merge the pending Policy changes? It's getting > a little frustrating reading these (or similar; not sure if this > particular case is addressed…) > https://salsa.debian.org/python-team/tools/python-apps/merge_requests I don't see any merge requests for PAPT. For DPMT I see only one (really huge) merge request: https://salsa.debian.org/python-team/tools/python-modules/merge_requests/2 I think it's better to do smaller changes/merge request. mwei, can you split it to more smaller merge requests please? -- Best regards Ondřej Nový Email: n...@ondrej.org PGP: 3D98 3C52 EB85 980C 46A5 6090 3573 1255 9D1E 064B
Re: Request to join PAPT (Was: Bug#914230: ITP: git-imerge -- incremental merge and rebase for git)
On 22 Nov 2018, at 08:48, Chris Lamb wrote: > > James Clarke wrote: > >> It turns out policy.rst is lying, I don't have permission to create a >> repository. Therefore I would like to request to join PAPT, please (and >> accept the policy even in spite of its lies). > > Python team, can we merge the pending Policy changes? It's getting > a little frustrating reading these (or similar; not sure if this > particular case is addressed…) Ah, it has been addressed in tools/python-modules's policy.rst, but the PAPT policy was forked from this in tools/python-apps and is missing the subsequent changes. I'll see about consolidating the changes later if nobody beats me to it. Regards, James
Re: Request to join PAPT (Was: Bug#914230: ITP: git-imerge -- incremental merge and rebase for git)
James Clarke wrote: > It turns out policy.rst is lying, I don't have permission to create a > repository. Therefore I would like to request to join PAPT, please (and > accept the policy even in spite of its lies). Python team, can we merge the pending Policy changes? It's getting a little frustrating reading these (or similar; not sure if this particular case is addressed…) Best wishes, -- ,''`. : :' : Chris Lamb `. `'` la...@debian.org / chris-lamb.co.uk `-
Re: Request Access to Salsa
On 11/21/18 12:23 AM, Per Andersson wrote: > Hi! > > I would like to join the Debian Python team on Salsa in order to > maintain python module python-sqlalchemy-migrate (ITP) [0]. As I wrote in your ITP bug, this packabge has been in Debian for many years: https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/migrate This is maintained in the OpenStack team because upstream is OpenStack since Jan Dittberner stopped working on it, and because it's used mainly in OpenStack. However, I would recommend against using it, as upstream is trying to get rid of it in the favor or Alembic. It's just there for historic reasons. Cheers, Thomas Goirand (zigo)
