Hi
On 17.09.2015 13:22, James Henstridge wrote:
> On 17 September 2015 at 18:53, Alberto Mardegan
> >
> wrote:
>
> Anyway, how to proceed? I'm not very fond of backporting the changes
> to the 15.04 framework, because
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 09/16/2015 07:32 PM, Jamie Strandboge wrote:
> Note that this landing was uncoordinated with the security team (I
> just now heard about it). There is no security policy for 15.10 on
> the device at the moment so targeting a 15.10 framework in an
On 17 September 2015 at 18:53, Alberto Mardegan <
alberto.marde...@canonical.com> wrote:
> Anyway, how to proceed? I'm not very fond of backporting the changes
> to the 15.04 framework, because we shouldn't modify a framework after
> having released it (save for bugfixes). What if an application
hi,
Am Mittwoch, den 16.09.2015, 10:19 +0300 schrieb Alberto Mardegan:
> Hi all!
> I'm writing this because I'm quite confused about the fate with wily
> and the 15.10 frameworks as far as the phones are concerned. Since I
> suspect I'm not the only one who is confused, I thought of writing
On 09/17/2015 09:24 AM, Jamie Strandboge wrote:
> Yet we've done this a lot already-- but mostly for bug fixes and new
> functionality (ie, not breaks to existing functionality). I think the way to
> proceed is get the new policy on the devices (but shipping newer security
> policy
> on old
On 09/16/2015 07:32 PM, Jamie Strandboge wrote:
Note that this landing was uncoordinated with the security team (I just now
heard about it). There is no security policy for 15.10 on the device at the
moment so targeting a 15.10 framework in an app won't work on a 15.04 device.
Looks like I'm
On 09/17/2015 04:16 PM, Pat McGowan wrote:
Sounds like we have a few issues.
Firs we neglected to provide a security policy as Jamie points out.
Second, the naming convention for frameworks is a bit unfortunate as it
uses the base distro release which strongly implies a tie in that is not
On 09/17/2015 05:53 AM, Alberto Mardegan wrote:
> On 09/16/2015 07:32 PM, Jamie Strandboge wrote:
>> Note that this landing was uncoordinated with the security team (I
>> just now heard about it). There is no security policy for 15.10 on
>> the device at the moment so targeting a 15.10 framework
Sounds like we have a few issues.
Firs we neglected to provide a security policy as Jamie points out.
Second, the naming convention for frameworks is a bit unfortunate as it
uses the base distro release which strongly implies a tie in that is not
necessarily the case. This has been debated
On 17 September 2015 at 15:24, Jamie Strandboge wrote:
> On 09/17/2015 05:53 AM, Alberto Mardegan wrote:
> > I tried to modify the reminders-app to use the new account APIs in
> > 15.10-dev1, but the application won't start.
> > I suspect that this has something to do with
Hi all!
I'm writing this because I'm quite confused about the fate with wily
and the 15.10 frameworks as far as the phones are concerned. Since I
suspect I'm not the only one who is confused, I thought of writing here.
As I understand it, Wily will not be released on the phones. We'll
continue
Hi,
there are two places where you can observe what framework is available
on the device and by the SDK or the store:
On the device just `adb shell` in run `click framework lists` and it
will list what frameworks the device is labelled up.
The other place where the SDK too pulls the
On 09/16/2015 03:22 AM, Zoltán Balogh wrote:
> Hi,
>
> there are two places where you can observe what framework is available on the
> device and by the SDK or the store:
>
> On the device just `adb shell` in run `click framework lists` and it will
> list
> what frameworks the device is
hey Zoltan - when running `click framework lists` i see that all the 15.10
ones are postponed with "dev1". Does that mean that these aren't really
official or experimental or something ? like is there a particular policy
if someone starts to use these on vivid+overlay ?
br,kg
On Wed, Sep 16,
14 matches
Mail list logo