On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 12:21 PM, Scott Kitterman ubu...@kitterman.com
wrote:
I usually use the ancestor revision shortcut for selecting the revision
to
diff:
Ubuntu patch compared to the common base version:
~/src/pkg-name/lucid/ $ bzr diff -rancestor:../squeeze/
Debian patch compared
forgot mailing list sorry silly gmail
So then you get to read the reply twice. ;-)
-- Forwarded message --
From: Dmitrijs Ledkovs dmitrij.led...@gmail.com
Date: 2010/1/18
Subject: Re: Feedback on merging via bzr
To: Scott Kitterman ubu...@kitterman.com
2010/1/18 Scott
On 28 January 2010 06:14, Reinhard Tartler siret...@ubuntu.com wrote:
...
 - download the orig.tar.gz/orig.tar.bz2 files from debian
The branches are pristine-tar enabled you can just
$ bzr bd them and a tarball will appear in your tarball's directory.
Right, but which tarball? It's not
On 28 January 2010 12:04, Scott Kitterman ubu...@kitterman.com wrote:
On 28 January 2010 06:14, Reinhard Tartler siret...@ubuntu.com wrote:
...
à - download the orig.tar.gz/orig.tar.bz2 files from debian
The branches are pristine-tar enabled you can just
$ bzr bd them and a tarball
On Tuesday, February 15, 2011 12:34:28 am Martin Pool wrote:
We have a question in https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/516709 about
what the permissions on official package branches ought to be, and how
they should be explained to the user.
The basic thing is that Launchpad knows who is allowed
On Thursday, March 24, 2011 09:50:26 pm Martin Pool wrote:
On 25 March 2011 01:44, Francis J. Lacoste
francis.laco...@canonical.com wrote:
On March 23, 2011, Barry Warsaw wrote:
* The build-from-branch-into-primary LEP is awaiting assignment to an LP
squad for implementation. Martin and
I decided to try UDD again for a new upstream version that was just released.
I was following the documentation here:
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DistributedDevelopment/Documentation/NewUpstreamVersion
I got to this step:
bzr merge-upstream --version 1.2 http://example.org/releases/foo-1.2.tar.gz
On Thursday, April 14, 2011 03:00:23 PM Scott Kitterman wrote:
I decided to try UDD again for a new upstream version that was just
released.
I was following the documentation here:
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DistributedDevelopment/Documentation/NewUpstreamVer
sion
I got to this step
Max Bowsher _...@maxb.eu wrote:
On 23/05/11 07:42, Andrew Bennetts wrote:
Max Bowsher wrote:
A huge amount of the UDD importer's interesting code is in one file,
icommon.py.
I'd like to submit a series of changes to break it up such that only
the
most common bits of code remain there.
Max Bowsher _...@maxb.eu wrote:
Max Bowsher wrote:
package_importer is a bit long. udd works for me, especially as
the
project lives in lp:udd.
On 23/05/11 12:19, Scott Kitterman wrote:
The term udd is, unfortunately, overloaded. It's also 'Ultimate
Debian Database'. I suggest something
On Thursday, September 22, 2011 06:42:48 PM Jelmer Vernooij wrote:
This would more closely mirror how
packages are managed in Debian. However, I'd still want
`bzr branch ubuntu:gtimelog` to give me the full source. I wonder if
nested branches are the answer here. One trick would be
On Tuesday, March 20, 2012 10:56:27 AM Andreas Hasenack wrote:
So apparently a package update can be prepared using udd, released
into the archive, and the packaging branch still be out of date:
$ bzr branch
ubuntu:landscape-client landscape-client-12.04-0ubuntu1
Most recent Ubuntu
The updated distro-info-data is in quantal-updates.
Scott K
Martin Packman martin.pack...@canonical.com wrote:
Currently every[1] package import is failing[2] because the new
'raring'
series is not present in the list of releases obtainted from
distro-info.
The package importer is using
On 12/06/2011 12:28 AM, Amber Graner wrote:
On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 12:15 AM, Scott Kitterman ubu...@kitterman.com wrote:
None of these are derivatives (Mint is a derivative). These are other
distribution products developed in the Ubuntu project. I think it's
much more correct to refer
None of these are derivatives (Mint is a derivative). These are other
distribution products developed in the Ubuntu project. I think it's
much more correct to refer to them as siblings to Ubuntu (Desktop) and
Ubuntu Server.
I know you didn't make up this terminology, but in no sense of the word
On 12/06/2011 12:52 AM, Amber Graner wrote:
On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 12:40 AM, Scott Kitterman ubu...@kitterman.com wrote:
On 12/06/2011 12:28 AM, Amber Graner wrote:
On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 12:15 AM, Scott Kitterman ubu...@kitterman.com
wrote:
None of these are derivatives (Mint
Barry Warsaw ba...@canonical.com wrote:
On Oct 11, 2010, at 09:30 AM, Clint Byrum wrote:
Thinking forward to the future, I'd like to see the newest version
of libraries like boost get into the earliest possible release of
Ubuntu. My reasoning here, is that if boost 1.44 is only added
during
On Friday, October 15, 2010 09:31:38 am Deryck Hodge wrote:
Hi, all.
I'm sure many of you may have heard by now, but we're getting close to
re-enabling automatic bug expiry on Launchpad. There's a post about
this on the Launchpad blog:
On Friday, October 15, 2010 05:47:10 pm Bryce Harrington wrote:
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 03:44:17PM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
On Friday, October 15, 2010 09:31:38 am Deryck Hodge wrote:
Hi, all.
I'm sure many of you may have heard by now, but we're getting close to
re-enabling
On Thursday, October 28, 2010 04:47:37 pm Thierry Carrez wrote:
A few hours ago, during the UDS Java Library Housekeeping session, we
discussed the damage that was done during the Lucid and Maverick cycles
by introducing new versions of Java libraries late in the cycle.
The problem is that
On Monday, November 15, 2010 10:17:01 am Barry Warsaw wrote:
On Nov 15, 2010, at 12:06 PM, Stefano Rivera wrote:
Why not just use python-support/dh_python2's private-module mode? This
is what most applications should be using, anyway, rather than polluting
the public Python module namespace.
On Wednesday, November 17, 2010 04:38:53 pm Dustin Kirkland wrote:
Q: Why not default the cursor on that question to No, instead of Yes?
A: That totally bypasses the value of this proposal, and is only
microscopically better than what we currently have ...
Dustin,
I think this seriously
On Thursday, November 18, 2010 12:51:40 pm Allison Randal wrote:
On 11/18/2010 09:22 AM, Martin Pitt wrote:
Philipp Kern [2010-11-17 11:35 +0100]:
FWIW (and I didn't see this raised in this thread) FQDNs do not need to
be registered with the LANANA and can be used instead of a registered
Rodney Dawes rodney.da...@canonical.com wrote:
On Sat, 2010-11-27 at 12:10 -0800, Clint Byrum wrote:
Also, why would 10.10 need to be updated in any way if it already
supports the newer protocol?
In 10.10 and 11.04, we already ship CouchDB 1.0. Why should users
continue to have two versions
On Thursday, December 02, 2010 02:36:19 pm Jono Bacon wrote:
Hi All,
Today I had a discussion with some of the other organizers of UDS, and
we have been reviewing some of the feedback from the survey and we have
some areas in which we would like to improve.
I wanted to highlight these
On Tuesday, December 07, 2010 07:05:03 pm Matthias Klose wrote:
Tomorrow, Wednesday December 8, we'll change the default Python version in
Natty from 2.6 to 2.7.
Where did we do the assessment of the rebuilds done over the weekend that was
decided on at the Release Team meeting?
Scott K
--
On Tuesday, December 07, 2010 07:51:24 pm Matthias Klose wrote:
On 08.12.2010 01:30, Scott Kitterman wrote:
On Tuesday, December 07, 2010 07:05:03 pm Matthias Klose wrote:
Tomorrow, Wednesday December 8, we'll change the default Python version
in Natty from 2.6 to 2.7.
Where did we do
On Wednesday, December 15, 2010 07:22:37 am Matthias Klose wrote:
- pre-promote a package, submit a MIR this looks easy and leave the
report alone to rot.
- pre-promote a package, submit a MIR, get feedback from the MIR team
does the daemon run as root? setting the report to
Philipp Kern pk...@ubuntu.com wrote:
Bilal,
am Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 07:09:55PM +0300 hast du folgendes geschrieben:
On 01/16/2011 06:52 PM, Martin Pitt wrote:
Pedantic mode is not on by default, though, is it? If it's an
issue,
--pedantic isn't enabled by default in lintian, but most
On Thursday, February 03, 2011 03:56:00 pm Barry Warsaw wrote:
I've tried to send this to the list several times, but it hasn't gone
through. I received no responses, but now at least I'm glad to know that
it wasn't y'all ignoring me, just lists.ubuntu.com. ;) Let's see if I've
cleared up my
On Wednesday, February 09, 2011 10:12:12 pm Ted Gould wrote:
On Wed, 2011-02-09 at 11:13 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Wed, Feb 09, 2011 at 09:22:16AM -0500, Barry Warsaw wrote:
There's one thing I miss from my days running Gentoo, and no, it's not
the unholy number of hours it takes to
On Thursday, February 17, 2011 03:08:15 pm Barry Warsaw wrote:
On Feb 17, 2011, at 06:51 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
1. From the LEP: Disabling dput uploads is not a nice to have. It's a
misfeature that violates (AIUI) one of the core assumptions given to
Ubuntu developers when this project
On Saturday, February 19, 2011 08:47:04 am Martin Pitt wrote:
Scott Kitterman [2011-02-17 6:51 -0500]:
1. From the LEP: Disabling dput uploads is not a nice to have.
While we shouldn't disable it in general, ever (see my other reply),
I'd highly welcome disabling dput on a per-package
On Monday, February 21, 2011 09:36:50 pm Martin Pool wrote:
On 18 February 2011 08:25, Andy Whitcroft a...@canonical.com wrote:
Push to upload implies that it is practicle to move all packages into
bzr. For large packages such as the kernel, libreoffice, X etc, where
those are not in
On Tuesday, February 22, 2011 12:47:15 am Steve Langasek wrote:
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 03:57:16PM +1100, Martin Pool wrote:
On 22 February 2011 13:59, Scott Kitterman ubu...@kitterman.com wrote:
The alternative of adding a specialized field in debian/control for
packages that should
On Tuesday, February 22, 2011 11:51:02 am Steve Langasek wrote:
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 11:14:56AM -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:
One point I don't understand is why people insist they need to leave work
in progress on the official branch? bzr is a DVCS, so why don't people
make their own
On Wednesday, March 02, 2011 11:53:45 am Martin Pitt wrote:
Hello all,
Jonathan Riddell [2011-03-02 16:05 +]:
It would be good to move Qt 3 from main to universe, it's unmaintained
upstream, is a duplication of another library (Qt 4) and is not
actively used by anything much.
Dropped server from cc, since it's no OT there.
On Friday, March 18, 2011 11:55:35 pm Dustin Kirkland wrote:
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 1:54 PM, Scott Kitterman ubu...@kitterman.com
wrote:
On Thursday, March 17, 2011 10:01:51 pm Dustin Kirkland wrote:
...
Spiffy, huh? Thanks to everyone who
On Saturday, March 19, 2011 12:08:16 am Scott Kitterman wrote:
Dropped server from cc, since it's no OT there.
On Friday, March 18, 2011 11:55:35 pm Dustin Kirkland wrote:
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 1:54 PM, Scott Kitterman ubu...@kitterman.com
wrote:
On Thursday, March 17, 2011 10:01:51
Dustin Kirkland kirkl...@ubuntu.com wrote:
...
Cool?
Mostly it looks to me like you breaking feature freeze and only partly cleaning
up the mess. It's great you made it configurable. Now please make the old
behavior the default so that other Ubuntu (the project) flavors aren't forced
to either
Dustin Kirkland kirkl...@ubuntu.com wrote:
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 7:51 PM, Scott Kitterman sc...@kitterman.com
wrote:
Dustin Kirkland kirkl...@ubuntu.com wrote:
...
Cool?
Mostly it looks to me like you breaking feature freeze and only
partly cleaning up the mess. It's great you made
Since some of the gcc changes that were the source of FTBFS in Natty have been
reverted [1], we are scheduling a mass giveback of failed packages on i386,
amd64, and powerpc (a mass giveback of armel was started earlier this week).
This should result if fewer build failures so we can spend time
On Sunday, March 27, 2011 10:34:23 am Allison Randal wrote:
On 03/26/2011 07:11 PM, Rick Spencer wrote:
Please let me know if I missed the conversation elsewhere, or if the
feature was properly handled with a FFE, and I just missed that part.
Appropriate checks were made with appropriate
On Sunday, March 27, 2011 03:28:42 pm Allison Randal wrote:
On 03/27/2011 06:30 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
Where is this discussion documented?
This change affected multiple applications in a wide variety of contexts.
What is the 'individual application' that was affected?
Agreed
Dustin Kirkland kirkl...@canonical.com wrote:
On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 10:21 AM, Colin Watson cjwat...@ubuntu.com
wrote:
It would have to go on the kernel command line, not in the CD preseed
file. The latter is read too late for this.
It would probably be better to add new values for the
On Thursday, March 31, 2011 06:26:38 PM Barry Warsaw wrote:
lp:~ted/ubuntu-dev-tools/create-new-milestone
I don't understand why this is proposed for ubuntu-dev-tools? This didn't
appear to be Ubuntu specific and IIRC there was just a discussion about
standing up some kind of LP tools
For Python, I'd like to see us drop 2.6 and make 2.7 the default during the
toolchain setup (and before the first autosync run). This will (obviously)
need to be agreed befor UDS.
For Python 3, we should drop python3.1 at the same time.
For a developmental goal during the cycle I think we
On Friday, April 01, 2011 12:58:37 PM Barry Warsaw wrote:
On Apr 01, 2011, at 12:50 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
For Python, I'd like to see us drop 2.6 and make 2.7 the default during
the toolchain setup (and before the first autosync run). This will
(obviously) need to be agreed befor UDS
On Friday, April 01, 2011 01:14:50 PM Scott Kitterman wrote:
We got HAL out of Main this cycle. In oneiric, let's make it a goal to get
it out of the archive.
Scott K
Debian related resource pointed out to me by mbiebl:
http://wiki.debian.org/HALRemoval
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin
On Saturday, April 02, 2011 10:16:05 AM Artur Rona wrote:
Is it possible to create a special URL which leads to current fresh
archive rebuild? I imagine it as e.g.
http://qa.ubuntuwire.org/test-rebuild-devel/
There should be index.php which redirects to current rebuild, e.g. at
this moment it
On Saturday, April 02, 2011 10:25:31 AM Michael Terry wrote:
On 02/04/11 09:56, Scott Ritchie wrote:
This has long been good practice for a variety of reasons
I agree with all your reasons, but tend to prefer ~lucid1, ~maverick1,
etc. in case the same package is available for multiple
On Thursday, April 07, 2011 10:00:45 PM Jorge O. Castro wrote:
On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 9:38 PM, Rick Spencer rick.spen...@canonical.com
wrote:
1. There are key feature regressions, for example, there is no systray
support for many important applications.
According to the AppIndicator
On Friday, April 08, 2011 11:51:48 AM James Hunt wrote:
Hi All,
As a precursor to pushing this update out to Natty next week, I've
updated my upstart-testing PPA with Upstart version 0.9.5-1ubuntu1:
ppa:jamesodhunt/upstart-testing
Code is here:
On Thursday, April 14, 2011 09:13:39 AM Matthew Paul Thomas wrote:
John Johansen wrote on 11/04/11 01:00:
On 04/09/2011 12:21 AM, Allison Randal wrote:
On 04/07/2011 11:52 PM, Martin Pitt wrote:
If this is a major issue, then frankly I'd rather just remove the
whitelist and allow all
On Thursday, April 14, 2011 01:39:43 PM Ted Gould wrote:
On Thu, 2011-04-14 at 09:49 -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
Unless it's a package developed specifically for Ubuntu, it's really not
a bug in the package from an upstream perspective. Some upstreams will
choose to support Ubuntu
On Thursday, April 14, 2011 03:17:47 PM Ted Gould wrote:
On Thu, 2011-04-14 at 20:47 +0200, Benjamin Drung wrote:
Am Donnerstag, den 14.04.2011, 12:39 -0500 schrieb Ted Gould:
I hope that one day we can get to the point of having UI requirements
on applications within the Ubuntu process
On Tuesday, April 26, 2011 05:51:05 AM Matthias Klose wrote:
On 04/26/2011 04:47 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
On Saturday, April 23, 2011 06:26:27 AM Matthias Klose wrote:
On 04/14/2011 06:28 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
This should get done before UDS, during toolchain upload (i.e. before
boost1.46 is now accepted in oneiric and will be (until at least Debian
changes defaults again) the default boost for oneiric. We will also work to
remove boost1.42 from the archive this cycle.
How you can help:
If you are uploading a package with versioned depends/build-depends on
On Tuesday, May 17, 2011 06:44:26 AM Evan Dandrea wrote:
While we have a set of unit tests and a continuous integration system doing
system testing of the installer, we ultimately have no idea what the
failure rate is in the real world.
Without this information, we have no means of actually
On Tuesday, May 17, 2011 11:43:25 AM Philipp Kern wrote:
On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 09:31:59AM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
While I believe you are trying to solve an important problem, I don't
think this is the right way to go about it. I do not think a design the
phones home by default
On Monday, May 30, 2011 08:41:10 AM Martin Pitt wrote:
Hello all,
I just finished my 4 hour patch pilot shift. When I started this
morning, there were 102 items in the queue, when I left there were 60.
- lp:~allison/ubuntu/oneiric/backuppc/no-perl-suid: do quick security
review,
I just took my first look at the so called Ubuntu Packaging Guide and it's
clear that a lot of work has gone into developing a useful guide for new
contributors. It does concern me that the name Ubuntu Packaging Guide is
really misleading.
If you look at
On Friday, June 03, 2011 10:25:28 AM Stefano Rivera wrote:
Hi Scott (2011.06.03_15:51:00_+0200)
you'll find no mention of the 'normal' tools and processes that I (and
I believe most) Ubuntu developers use.
I think it's useful to develop documentation aimed at where we want to
be, a
On Saturday, June 04, 2011 12:36:08 PM Daniel Holbach wrote:
Hello everybody,
Am 04.06.2011 05:00, schrieb Scott Kitterman:
I fail to find any evidence in Evan's reply that he thought otherwise. I
find it quite odd that you are so certain of it. It may not be clear to
you, but Ubuntu
On Saturday, June 04, 2011 03:20:55 PM Daniel Holbach wrote:
Hello,
first of all let me say that we agree on a lot more than we disagree on.
Am 04.06.2011 20:20, schrieb Scott Kitterman:
I'm quite encouraged by Zygmunt's latest reply in the thread. It's more
like the reply I would have
On Wednesday, June 08, 2011 06:50:30 PM Allison Randal wrote:
At UDS-O, we discussed CD space again (as at many a past UDS). Colin has
nicely summarized the discussion:
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/FoundationsTeam/Specs/OneiricCDSizing
Following on the tail of this, a few of us have been
Benjamin Drung bdr...@ubuntu.com wrote:
Am Freitag, den 10.06.2011, 13:09 +0200 schrieb Didier Roche:
Those issues where we loose contributor and our time just for
ensuring
and reporting commits in the right branch make me think that for
desktop
team branch (as most of them are in
On Monday, June 13, 2011 09:58:21 PM Dustin Kirkland wrote:
Howdy ubuntu-devel!
I'm seeing quite a bit of code duplication in scripts and packaging in
Ubuntu around the determination of IP addresses.
Most are permutations of 'ifconfig' or 'ip addr', and four to six
pipes through awk,
On Wednesday, June 15, 2011 12:40:27 PM Dave Walker wrote:
Hi,
Currently, if the upstream code is changed (anything other than
debian/*).. When dpkg-buildpackage is run, an automated patch is
created. This is a really nice feature, but it is very easy to miss
this. I have seen multiple
On Tuesday, June 14, 2011 01:57:11 AM Allison Randal wrote:
At UDS-O, we talked about balancing the 6-month cycle from the current
24/28 split towards a more even split. The general consensus was to keep
the long 28 week cycle for P, since it's an LTS, but discuss more for Q
and R.
For
Steve Beattie sbeat...@ubuntu.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 02:48:58PM -0700, Allison Randal wrote:
Very valuable perspective, thanks. To other upstreams, do you have
similar or opposite needs?
Perhaps this is just me being naive, but with upstreams, shouldn't we
be emphasizing the
Micah Gersten mic...@ubunt.com wrote:
On 06/15/2011 05:58 PM, Steve Beattie wrote:
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 02:48:58PM -0700, Allison Randal wrote:
Very valuable perspective, thanks. To other upstreams, do you have
similar or opposite needs?
Perhaps this is just me being naive, but with
Ted Gould t...@ubuntu.com wrote:
On Wed, 2011-06-15 at 14:48 -0700, Allison Randal wrote:
A few practical considerations I ran through:
- Release on Oct 11 means UDS on Oct 29-Nov 2 (the week of Halloween)
- Release on Oct 18 means UDS on Nov 5-9
- Release on Oct 25 means UDS on Nov 12-17
Bryce Harrington br...@canonical.com wrote:
... This includes a comment area to
allow
packagers to mark merges they're working on or leave notes for other
packagers ...
This new page still offers substantially less functionality than
MoM/grab-merge. If you want to mark merges as in progress
On Thursday, June 16, 2011 01:25:05 AM Steve Kowalik wrote:
On 16/06/11 16:11, Scott Kitterman wrote:
This new page still offers substantially less functionality than
MoM/grab-merge. If you want to mark merges as in progress or leave
merge related notes for other developers, MoM
On Thursday, June 16, 2011 03:25:23 PM Bryce Harrington wrote:
...
I'm not not a launchpad developer, however I am attempting to help
improve the transparency between ubuntu and launchpad.
...
This is an important function. I'm glad you're doing it. Please continue.
Scott K
--
Julian Edwards juliand.edwa...@canonical.com wrote:
On Thursday 16 June 2011 13:46:41 Scott Kitterman wrote:
On Thursday, June 16, 2011 01:25:05 AM Steve Kowalik wrote:
On 16/06/11 16:11, Scott Kitterman wrote:
This new page still offers substantially less functionality than
MoM/grab
Julian Edwards julianf.edwa...@canonical.com wrote:
On Friday 17 June 2011 16:51:32 Scott Kitterman wrote:
Sure. I did the URL by hand and not with a script. I had always
assumed
that since LP supports batch sizes up to 300 using then was
supported,
just not part of the standard U/I
On Saturday, June 25, 2011 02:20:59 PM Bhavani Shankar R wrote:
On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 11:32 PM, Andreas Moog am...@ubuntu.com wrote:
On 06/25/2011 07:40 PM:
sixpack (1:0.68-1ubuntu1) oneiric; urgency=low
* Merge from debian unstable. Remaining changes:
- debian/README.Debian:
On Thursday, July 07, 2011 01:19:07 AM Micah Gersten wrote:
smarty3 (3.0.8-0ubuntu1) oneiric; urgency=low
* New upstream release. (LP: #801924)
Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2011 12:38:31 +0100
Changed-By: Mat Scales m...@wibbly.org.uk
Maintainer: Ubuntu Developers
On Thursday, July 21, 2011 03:05:04 PM Iain Lane wrote:
Hello,
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 11:40:44AM -0700, Chase Douglas wrote:
On 07/21/2011 11:17 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
On Thursday, July 21, 2011 01:09:46 PM Chase Douglas wrote:
On 07/20/2011 04:02 PM, Iain Lane wrote:
On Wed
On Monday, July 25, 2011 11:11:43 AM Iain Lane wrote:
Hello,
On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 05:01:35PM +0200, Daniel Holbach wrote:
Hello everybody,
Am 25.07.2011 13:51, schrieb Scott Kitterman:
On Monday, July 25, 2011 07:45:50 AM Benjamin Drung wrote:
Am Montag, den 25.07.2011, 13:01
On Monday, July 25, 2011 11:33:52 AM Daniel Holbach wrote:
Hello,
Am 25.07.2011 17:26, schrieb Scott Kitterman:
The DMB is somewhat different than the other non-RMB membership boards
because the DMB grants membership based on type of contribution
(development) rather than area
On Monday, July 25, 2011 11:34:47 AM Mackenzie Morgan wrote:
On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 7:51 AM, Scott Kitterman ubu...@kitterman.com
wrote:
I think it's a fair point that UCD is confusing. What it means is
Ubuntu member that got their membership based on development
contribution
On Monday, July 25, 2011 02:41:29 PM Mackenzie Morgan wrote:
...
There was a discussion about it on IRC last week starting at
http://irclogs.ubuntu.com/2011/07/18/%23ubuntu-devel.html#t20:43
In particular, this is the part about whether MOTU can or can't touch
packages in package sets...
On Monday, July 25, 2011 03:48:38 PM Micah Gersten wrote:
On 07/25/2011 02:05 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
On Monday, July 25, 2011 02:41:29 PM Mackenzie Morgan wrote:
...
There was a discussion about it on IRC last week starting at
http://irclogs.ubuntu.com/2011/07/18/%23ubuntu
On Monday, July 25, 2011 04:52:42 PM Micah Gersten wrote:
On 07/25/2011 03:46 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
On Monday, July 25, 2011 03:48:38 PM Micah Gersten wrote:
On 07/25/2011 02:05 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
On Monday, July 25, 2011 02:41:29 PM Mackenzie Morgan wrote
On Monday, July 25, 2011 05:44:21 PM Micah Gersten wrote:
On 07/25/2011 04:25 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
On Monday, July 25, 2011 04:52:42 PM Micah Gersten wrote:
On 07/25/2011 03:46 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
On Monday, July 25, 2011 03:48:38 PM Micah Gersten wrote:
On 07/25/2011 02:05
Mackenzie Morgan maco...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 2:54 PM, Michael Bienia mich...@bienia.de
wrote:
I'm for a name change but only if it makes things more clear and
easier
to understand. But I disagree on Ubuntu Development Members as it's
too easy to mix it up with Ubuntu
Congratulations to Philip Muškovac (yofel) who is now a Kubuntu Developer
(kubuntu-dev). Since this is his first developer role in Ubuntu, it also means
he has just joined the ranks of Ubuntu developers too.
Scott K
--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings
On Wednesday, August 03, 2011 11:37:54 AM Chase Douglas wrote:
On 08/02/2011 06:46 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
On Tuesday, August 02, 2011 04:04:31 PM Chase Douglas wrote:
On 08/02/2011 12:43 PM, Mackenzie Morgan wrote:
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 3:23 PM, Bryce Harrington br...@canonical.com
On Wednesday, August 03, 2011 03:04:14 PM Chase Douglas wrote:
On 08/02/2011 09:33 AM, Chase Douglas wrote:
My proposal would be to do away with formal meetings, at least for
evaluating typical applications, and move them to Launchpad. Create a
project (maybe ubuntu-developer-membership)
On Wednesday, August 03, 2011 03:46:55 PM Chase Douglas wrote:
On 08/03/2011 12:35 PM, Mackenzie Morgan wrote:
On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 3:24 PM, Scott Moser smo...@ubuntu.com wrote:
At very least, this issue needs to be fixed. Meetings need to happen at
scheduled times, or be
On Wednesday, August 03, 2011 05:29:07 PM Chase Douglas wrote:
On 08/03/2011 02:05 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
On Wednesday, August 03, 2011 04:06:26 PM Chase Douglas wrote:
On 08/03/2011 12:44 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
On Wednesday, August 03, 2011 03:04:14 PM Chase Douglas wrote:
On 08
On Thursday, August 04, 2011 06:01:01 AM Oliver Grawert wrote:
hi,
Am Mittwoch, den 03.08.2011, 17:05 -0400 schrieb Scott Kitterman:
Much of this entire discussion was started by Canonical employees wanting
special case treatment for upstream work sponsored by Canonical.
this is totally
-2.1ubuntu1_i386.changes|less
after test building the package.
Scott K
-- Forwarded Message --
Subject: [ubuntu/oneiric] netifaces 0.5-2.1ubuntu2 (Accepted)
Date: Friday, August 05, 2011, 01:00:18 AM
From: Ubuntu Installer arch...@ubuntu.com
To: Scott Kitterman ubu...@kitterman.com
We announced at the start of the cycle moving from boost1.42 to boost.1.46 as
the default boost (and the only one in Main) with the objective of removing
boost1.42 from the archive. We are close. The six packages below are the
only ones left building against the 1.42 versions of the various
Felix Geyer de...@ubuntu.com wrote:
On 12.09.2011 14:30, Harald Sitter wrote:
IIRC stripping is actually done by a fake package in the buildd which
will in an appropriate build environment (i.e. main archive buildd
and
target is either main or restricted) execute the stripping as part of
On Wednesday, October 05, 2011 11:40:59 AM Iain Lane wrote:
Hello,
Some time ago there were some, ahem, vigorous threads on ubuntu-devel
about various aspects of the developer membership processes.
One aspect which the DMB would like to lead an effort to improve, in
consultation with the
On Wednesday, October 05, 2011 04:17:43 PM Iain Lane wrote:
Hiya,
On Wed, Oct 05, 2011 at 03:55:54PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
[…]
All three cases have in common that the packages were left alone for
months. The third example could have been avoided if we could check
build
1 - 100 of 668 matches
Mail list logo
