On Mon, 16 Feb 2015 10:59:06 -0500
Joshua Kinard wrote:
> Once we complete the git migration, why not take a second look on
> using a stable/testing/unstable (or -RELEASE/-STABLE/-CURRENT) system
> used by Debian and FreeBSD? That should be entirely doable under a
> git tree versus CVS. It woul
Dnia 2015-02-16, o godz. 10:37:12
William Hubbs napisał(a):
> On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 02:34:50PM +0100, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> > Hello
> >
> > Every day I am hitting tons of blockers stabilizations and keywording
> > requests for alpha, sparc, ia64, ppc and ppc64.
> >
> > Again, I would suggest
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 10:59 AM, Joshua Kinard wrote:
>
> Keep the core git tree constantly rolling forward, have a dedicated branch get
> cut say, once a year (or less -- Debian is ~18mo?), another group of devs
> works
> on stabilizing that (and periodically cherrypicking from the master branc
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 02:34:50PM +0100, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> Hello
>
> Every day I am hitting tons of blockers stabilizations and keywording
> requests for alpha, sparc, ia64, ppc and ppc64.
>
> Again, I would suggest to either decrease radically the amount of stable
> packages of some of that
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 02:34:50PM +0100, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> Hello
>
> Every day I am hitting tons of blockers stabilizations and keywording
> requests for alpha, sparc, ia64, ppc and ppc64.
>
> Again, I would suggest to either decrease radically the amount of stable
> packages of some of that
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 4:22 PM, Anthony G. Basile wrote:
>> They come from multiple places, for example I am now fighting with
>> getting ipython finally stabilized after months of waiting because the
>> deps hell in python packages (as package A needs package B, B needs C
>> and D maintained by
On 02/16/15 11:05, Pacho Ramos wrote:
El lun, 16-02-2015 a las 10:36 -0500, Anthony G. Basile escribió:
On 02/16/15 08:34, Pacho Ramos wrote:
Hello
Every day I am hitting tons of blockers stabilizations and keywording
requests for alpha, sparc, ia64, ppc and ppc64.
The powerpc team figured we
El lun, 16-02-2015 a las 10:36 -0500, Anthony G. Basile escribió:
> On 02/16/15 08:34, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> > Hello
> >
> > Every day I am hitting tons of blockers stabilizations and keywording
> > requests for alpha, sparc, ia64, ppc and ppc64.
>
> The powerpc team figured we'd deal with this by
On 02/16/2015 10:36, Anthony G. Basile wrote:
> On 02/16/15 08:34, Pacho Ramos wrote:
>> Hello
>>
>> Every day I am hitting tons of blockers stabilizations and keywording
>> requests for alpha, sparc, ia64, ppc and ppc64.
>
> The powerpc team figured we'd deal with this by being "lax" about
> keyw
On 02/16/15 08:34, Pacho Ramos wrote:
Hello
Every day I am hitting tons of blockers stabilizations and keywording
requests for alpha, sparc, ia64, ppc and ppc64.
The powerpc team figured we'd deal with this by being "lax" about
keywording/stabilization and catch problems in subsequent bug rep
El lun, 16-02-2015 a las 10:09 -0500, Rich Freeman escribió:
> On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 8:34 AM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> >
> > The current policy of maintainers dropping keywords after 90 days is
> > simply not applied because it leads up to that maintainer needing to
> > kill himself that keyword and
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 8:34 AM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
>
> The current policy of maintainers dropping keywords after 90 days is
> simply not applied because it leads up to that maintainer needing to
> kill himself that keyword and ALL the reverse deps keywords
A published script might ease that, esp
Hello
Every day I am hitting tons of blockers stabilizations and keywording
requests for alpha, sparc, ia64, ppc and ppc64.
Again, I would suggest to either decrease radically the amount of stable
packages of some of that arches or even make them testing only.
For reducing their stable tree, my
13 matches
Mail list logo
