Excerpts from Andreas Jaeger's message of 2017-02-01 15:37:15 +0100:
> On 2017-02-01 15:27, Doug Hellmann wrote:
> > [...]
> > Another option was to have the release bot continually propose
> > updates to the same patch, like we do with the global requirements
> > sync job. On any given day,
On 2017-02-01 15:27, Doug Hellmann wrote:
> [...]
> Another option was to have the release bot continually propose
> updates to the same patch, like we do with the global requirements
> sync job. On any given day, that's going to cause a bunch of resets
> on the patch, until we merge it. That
Excerpts from Tony Breeds's message of 2017-02-01 21:18:54 +1100:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 04:34:56PM -0500, Doug Hellmann wrote:
> > When I tried to merge the upper-constraints updates for the library
> > releases we did today, I ran into quite a lot of merge conflicts
> > with the Oslo
On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 04:34:56PM -0500, Doug Hellmann wrote:
> When I tried to merge the upper-constraints updates for the library
> releases we did today, I ran into quite a lot of merge conflicts
> with the Oslo libraries. I'm exploring options for reducing the
> likelihood that those sorts of
On 2017-01-18 16:34:56 -0500 (-0500), Doug Hellmann wrote:
> When I tried to merge the upper-constraints updates for the library
> releases we did today, I ran into quite a lot of merge conflicts
> with the Oslo libraries. I'm exploring options for reducing the
> likelihood that those sorts of
I actually like the last option (sha) the most, even as a packager I can
just take the file and sort it if I want something more human readable.
--
Matthew Thode (prometheanfire)
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
When I tried to merge the upper-constraints updates for the library
releases we did today, I ran into quite a lot of merge conflicts
with the Oslo libraries. I'm exploring options for reducing the
likelihood that those sorts of conflicts will occur with a few
patches that change how we generate
