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 with
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
-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 to the repo (some pe
-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 tea
-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 package
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
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 kn
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
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
>m
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, it
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 ne
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 regim
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
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 others
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 in Sid, even
>>>
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
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
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
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,
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
>> e
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 t
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 that
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 a
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 dis
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 suppor
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 tech
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 o
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,
-Ba
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 Deb
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 these
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 sta
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 t
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
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 m
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
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 both your
>focus and
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 the Vcs-* headers
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 experimental."
> (fortunately fo
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 w
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 "Oops, made a
>mistake,
>> I'll
>> revert it from svn a
40 matches
Mail list logo