On Tuesday 25 October 2016 06:10 PM, Martín Ferrari wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 25/10/16 06:57, Pirate Praveen wrote:
>> On Wednesday 12 October 2016 08:19 PM, Martín Ferrari wrote:
>>> I need to check with upstream if they are breaking API compatibility for
>>> good, and in that case will need to create
Hi,
On 25/10/16 06:57, Pirate Praveen wrote:
> On Wednesday 12 October 2016 08:19 PM, Martín Ferrari wrote:
>> I need to check with upstream if they are breaking API compatibility for
>> good, and in that case will need to create a new package with a API
>> version embedded.
>
> What do you
On Wednesday 12 October 2016 08:19 PM, Martín Ferrari wrote:
> I need to check with upstream if they are breaking API compatibility for
> good, and in that case will need to create a new package with a API
> version embedded.
What do you think the best here now? I have to fix
On 11/10/16 21:39, Vincent Bernat wrote:
> ❦ 11 octobre 2016 19:06 CEST, Martín Ferrari :
>
> I'm really sorry and I will revert the change and work on the other
> dependencies.
Yeah, sorry does not cut it. How the hell are you now going to fix this
❦ 11 octobre 2016 19:06 CEST, Martín Ferrari :
I'm really sorry and I will revert the change and work on the other
dependencies.
>>>
>>> Yeah, sorry does not cut it. How the hell are you now going to fix this
>>> mess?
>>>
>> I will upload 3.0.0+REALLY.2.6.0-1 which
On ചൊവ്വ 11 ഒക്ടോബര് 2016 10:36 വൈകു, Martín Ferrari wrote:
> OK, please do the same with both libraries, and revert any other changes
> you have done.
Reverted both packages to previous versions.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
On 11/10/16 19:04, Pirate Praveen wrote:
> On ചൊവ്വ 11 ഒക്ടോബര് 2016 10:23 വൈകു, Martín Ferrari wrote:
>> On 11/10/16 18:51, Pirate Praveen wrote:
>>
>>> I'm really sorry and I will revert the change and work on the other
>>> dependencies.
>>
>> Yeah, sorry does not cut it. How the hell are you
On 11/10/16 18:51, Pirate Praveen wrote:
> I'm really sorry and I will revert the change and work on the other
> dependencies.
Yeah, sorry does not cut it. How the hell are you now going to fix this
mess?
--
Martín Ferrari (Tincho)
___
STOP WHAT YOU ARE DOING NOW.
On 11/10/16 17:23, Pirate Praveen wrote:
> I tested the reverse dependency. Its tests are passing with golang-go. I
> uploaded both to experimental first before uploading to unstable. I
> fixed one issue in experimental too.
You only tested the one direct reverse
On 11/10/16 13:40, Debian FTP Masters wrote:
> Accepted:
> Source: golang-github-dgrijalva-jwt-go
> Binary: golang-github-dgrijalva-jwt-go-dev
> Architecture: source
> Version: 3.0.0-3
This is pretty surprising! Have you check that this does not break
reverse dependencies? I mentioned just a
10 matches
Mail list logo