On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 11:08:56AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
That was not the counter-argument back then [1], it might be a new /
different counter-argument.
Actually, it kind-of was, see the subthread that starts here:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-qa/2007/08/msg00076.html
I'm offline
On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 11:09:39AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
Just to clarify, I meant moving collab-maint/foo.git to e.g.
collab-maint/orphaned/foo.git to make it obvious to folks browsing the
repository that it's orphaned, while retaining the history. Not
suggesting to put everything
On 05/08/09 at 14:16 +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
Lucas Nussbaum lu...@lucas-nussbaum.net (05/08/2009):
Actually, the counter-argument is that we don't want to make it
*harder* to do a QA upload. Currently, it's apt-get source ; make
change ; dput. If we used a VCS, we would have to
On 05/08/09 at 14:41 +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Wed, Aug 05, 2009 at 08:27:22AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
Actually, the counter-argument is that we don't want to make it
*harder* to do a QA upload.
That was not the counter-argument back then [1], it might be a new /
different
On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 11:08, Lucas Nussbaumlu...@lucas-nussbaum.net wrote:
I don't think that our current workflow for QA uploads is suboptimal,
but I have not done many QA uploads. Maybe the best thing to do would be
to ask people who do a lot of QA uploads, and see if using a VCS would
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Sandro Tosi wrote:
On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 11:08, Lucas Nussbaumlu...@lucas-nussbaum.net wrote:
I don't think that our current workflow for QA uploads is suboptimal,
but I have not done many QA uploads. Maybe the best thing to do would be
to
Lucas Nussbaum lu...@lucas-nussbaum.net (05/08/2009):
Actually, the counter-argument is that we don't want to make it
*harder* to do a QA upload. Currently, it's apt-get source ; make
change ; dput. If we used a VCS, we would have to create: - a process
to auto-import orphaned packages into
On Wed, Aug 05, 2009 at 08:27:22AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
Actually, the counter-argument is that we don't want to make it
*harder* to do a QA upload.
That was not the counter-argument back then [1], it might be a new /
different counter-argument.
[1]
Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
The reason why I think that moving some of the orphaned packages to
experimental is a good idea, is because often, you run into packages
that are still useful to a small number of users, have no alternative,
still basically work, but have been orphaned for 2 years with
Hi Thomas,
I love the work you do for Debian but I hate the positions you are
taking since you left the project. I have the feeling that you have an
extremist point of view and that you are not willing to try to understand
the other side of the discussion.
On Sun, 02 Aug 2009, Thomas Viehmann
Hi.
Raphael Hertzog wrote:
I love the work you do for Debian but I hate the positions you are
taking since you left the project. I have the feeling that you have an
extremist point of view and that you are not willing to try to understand
the other side of the discussion.
And I see no point
Lucas Nussbaum lu...@lucas-nussbaum.net (31/07/2009):
On 30/07/09 at 17:16 +0200, Sven Hoexter wrote:
IMHO it would be nice to aim at a release without oraphaned packages.
That's totally unrealistic.
Indeed. Quick examples which may come to mind:
- xulrunner and all gecko-based pakages.
-
Thomas Viehmann t...@beamnet.de (02/08/2009):
The packages are still on archive.d.o if they ever made a release (and
soon more finely grained on snapshots). The typical package did not
get nontrivial updates in a release cycle before it was removed, so
the version on archive.d.o will be just
On Sun, Aug 02, 2009 at 02:58:27PM +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
Speaking of which it might be nice to have some area in
collab-maint's VCSes where to put orphaned (and even removed)
packages, so that it's cleared they're kind-of-dropped.
This seems to be a recurring proposal. I raised it 1
On Sun, Aug 02 2009, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
I love the work you do for Debian but I hate the positions you are
taking since you left the project. I have the feeling that you have an
extremist point of view and that you are not willing to try to understand
the other side of the discussion.
Stefano Zacchiroli z...@debian.org (02/08/2009):
This seems to be a recurring proposal. I raised it 1 year ago (IIRC,
sorry I'm too lazy right now to look the reference) and Raphael
Hertzog pointed out to me that way before he advanced the same
proposal.
Sorry for that, missed it/them.
The
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 12:53 PM, Lucas
Nussbaumlu...@lucas-nussbaum.net wrote:
Removal of orphaned packages
The audience clearly want orphaned packages to be removed. I'm not quite
sure it's reasonable to do that. However, clearly, there's no opposition
to this
On 30/07/09 at 17:16 +0200, Sven Hoexter wrote:
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 01:47:23PM +0200, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
Hi,
Experimental is a development resource and not a dump for packages that
should not be in unstable/testing. Abusing it sounds like a bad idea, so
IMO think the
(Replying to the various comments in a single mail)
On 29/07/09 at 12:15 +0100, Marco Rodrigues wrote:
- move packages to experimental
I vote for this option. If a package doesn't have an active
maintainer, it should belong to experimental suite and add some note
at PTS explaning what to do
Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
(Replying to the various comments in a single mail)
On 29/07/09 at 12:15 +0100, Marco Rodrigues wrote:
- move packages to experimental
I vote for this option. If a package doesn't have an active
maintainer, it should belong to experimental suite and add some note
at PTS
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 01:47:23PM +0200, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
Hi,
Experimental is a development resource and not a dump for packages that
should not be in unstable/testing. Abusing it sounds like a bad idea, so
IMO think the current regime with a tad (but not overly) more aggressive
Hi,
Here is some notes (from memory) about the QA BOF, and the actions that
we are likely to take during the next weeks/months.
As usual, the most (only?) discussed topic was the handling of orphaned
packages. Several ideas were discussed.
Removal of orphaned packages
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
Hi,
Here is some notes (from memory) about the QA BOF, and the actions that
we are likely to take during the next weeks/months.
I saw the discussion from home and it was very interesting. Thank you
As usual, the most
Hi all,
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 12:53, Lucas Nussbaumlu...@lucas-nussbaum.net wrote:
Hi,
Here is some notes (from memory) about the QA BOF, and the actions that
we are likely to take during the next weeks/months.
I wasn't there (eheh, you should know it ;) ) and I didn't look at the
video,
ke, 2009-07-29 kello 12:53 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum kirjoitti:
liw worked on Computer Janitor[1,2], which seems to be a GUI for
debfoster/deborphan. It could be an interesting addition to add support
for listing orphaned packages in such a tool.
CJ actually has nothing to do with
Hi Lucas!
You wrote:
The audience clearly want orphaned packages to be removed. I'm not quite
sure it's reasonable to do that. However, clearly, there's no opposition
to this idea. When snapshots.debian.org will be fully fonctional, a web
interface will allow users to fetch and install
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 12:53:54PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
- add a note on the PTS explaining how to install packages from
snapshots.d.o
snip
- add a note on the PTS for experimental-only packages to explain how to
install them.
Just a comment: the PTS is not meant to be
27 matches
Mail list logo
