On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 8:36 AM, Bastien Nocera
wrote:
It was clear from the earlier mails that the release-team would be
using BuildStream, it really wasn't explicit that the developers and
maintainers of individual modules were also being asked that.
To be clear, we're
On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 9:14 AM, Emmanuele Bassi
wrote:
Whatever maintainers use to build release tarballs is fine — as
long as you ensure that you're always keeping the build of the whole
GNOME set of modules running.
Yes, this!
Milan, feel free to do the .91 release
On 9 February 2018 at 14:36, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> On Thu, 2018-02-08 at 13:57 -0600, mcatanz...@gnome.org wrote:
>> Hi developers,
>>
>> We're getting closer, but we're not yet at a point where we can
>> recommend that you try generating release tarballs with BuildStream and
On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 8:47 PM, Olav Vitters wrote:
> I assume Gitlab has some API to show the available repositories. As
> such, script is only thing which needs to change.
>
https://gitlab.gnome.org/Infrastructure/sysadmin-bin/merge_requests/3
Quick test shows that it works,
On Thu, 2018-02-08 at 13:57 -0600, mcatanz...@gnome.org wrote:
> Hi developers,
>
> We're getting closer, but we're not yet at a point where we can
> recommend that you try generating release tarballs with BuildStream and
> expect it to work. So I have to reluctantly recommend that you use
>
While the move was overall successful one of the hosts has been found
having an hardware failure and requires its mainboard to be replaced.
The part will be replaced today between 14 - 15 UTC. The affected
services that will have a downtime are:
bugzilla.gnome.org
paste.gnome.org
On Thu, 2018-02-08 at 13:57 -0600, mcatanz...@gnome.org wrote:
> Due to this delay, we will skip the 3.27.91 release altogether, so
> the next tarball deadline will be 3.27.92, on March 5. Perhaps by
> then we will be able to recommend using BuildStream for tarball
> generation.
Hi,
is it