public-inbox in Debian

public-inbox in Debian

[Uwe Kleine-König]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 503 bytes --]

Hello,

just a quick note to let you know that I uploaded public-inbox to
Debian. The required review process by the ftp team was completed very
quickly and the public-inbox package already landed in Debian sid.

https://tracker.debian.org/news/1234849/accepted-public-inbox-160-1-all-source-into-unstable-unstable/

Best regards
Uwe

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           | Uwe Kleine-König            |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

Re: public-inbox in Debian

[Eric Wong]

Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de> wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> just a quick note to let you know that I uploaded public-inbox to
> Debian. The required review process by the ftp team was completed very
> quickly and the public-inbox package already landed in Debian sid.

Awesome, thank you.  I guess the next release (bullseye) is
starting to freeze.

I've been trying to get a new release out ASAP but there's too
much left to do :<

> https://tracker.debian.org/news/1234849/accepted-public-inbox-160-1-all-source-into-unstable-unstable/

Any particular reason the package is 1.6.0-1 despite the

	"* Include changes from upstream bugfix release 1.6.1"

change entry?  Anyways, no big deal and thanks again for all
your work.

Re: public-inbox in Debian

[Uwe Kleine-König]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1817 bytes --]

Hello Eric,

On Thu, Mar 04, 2021 at 08:12:35AM +0000, Eric Wong wrote:
> Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de> wrote:
> > Hello,
> > 
> > just a quick note to let you know that I uploaded public-inbox to
> > Debian. The required review process by the ftp team was completed very
> > quickly and the public-inbox package already landed in Debian sid.
> 
> Awesome, thank you.  I guess the next release (bullseye) is
> starting to freeze.

For bullseye it's already too late, see
https://release.debian.org/bullseye/freeze_policy.html#soft

> I've been trying to get a new release out ASAP but there's too
> much left to do :<
> 
> > https://tracker.debian.org/news/1234849/accepted-public-inbox-160-1-all-source-into-unstable-unstable/
> 
> Any particular reason the package is 1.6.0-1 despite the
> 
> 	"* Include changes from upstream bugfix release 1.6.1"
> 
> change entry?  Anyways, no big deal and thanks again for all
> your work.

Funny you ask. I chose to do it that way because I expected that an
eventual 1.7.0 release won't include 1.6.1 as an ancestor and I thought
it a good idea to have my upstream branch to be fast-forward only.

Just before seeing your mail I already asked around for a nicer
solution in the corresponding Debian irc channel, maybe I just have to
accept a non-ff upstream branch. Shouldn't be a big deal.

Your mail is just another confirmation that the currently used scheme is
a bad idea. (Another is that the packaging page[1] nags that there is
another upstream release that should be packaged.)

Best regards
Uwe

[1] https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/public-inbox

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           | Uwe Kleine-König            |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

Re: public-inbox in Debian

[Eric Wong]

Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de> wrote:
> Hello Eric,
> 
> On Thu, Mar 04, 2021 at 08:12:35AM +0000, Eric Wong wrote:
> > Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de> wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > > 
> > > just a quick note to let you know that I uploaded public-inbox to
> > > Debian. The required review process by the ftp team was completed very
> > > quickly and the public-inbox package already landed in Debian sid.
> > 
> > Awesome, thank you.  I guess the next release (bullseye) is
> > starting to freeze.
> 
> For bullseye it's already too late, see
> https://release.debian.org/bullseye/freeze_policy.html#soft

Ah, no worries.  Maybe backports if there's demand (though 1.7
will support distro-agnostic "make install-symlinks" for
non-root users)

> > I've been trying to get a new release out ASAP but there's too
> > much left to do :<
> > 
> > > https://tracker.debian.org/news/1234849/accepted-public-inbox-160-1-all-source-into-unstable-unstable/
> > 
> > Any particular reason the package is 1.6.0-1 despite the
> > 
> > 	"* Include changes from upstream bugfix release 1.6.1"
> > 
> > change entry?  Anyways, no big deal and thanks again for all
> > your work.
> 
> Funny you ask. I chose to do it that way because I expected that an
> eventual 1.7.0 release won't include 1.6.1 as an ancestor and I thought
> it a good idea to have my upstream branch to be fast-forward only.

Actually, I merged 1.6.1 back into the tip of whatever branch
I was using and pushed it to master:

d49c0789d208e66121bfb68ff0c48d7612a7cd8e ("Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/lei' into eidx")
8862c33ae93eea1af6246cd3c7a81e0a122186bf ("Merge tag 'v1.6.1' into eidx")

> Just before seeing your mail I already asked around for a nicer
> solution in the corresponding Debian irc channel, maybe I just have to
> accept a non-ff upstream branch. Shouldn't be a big deal.
> 
> Your mail is just another confirmation that the currently used scheme is
> a bad idea. (Another is that the packaging page[1] nags that there is
> another upstream release that should be packaged.)

Right, no big deal.

Btw, since there's bb928d88ed4c72241a8d76bc792cdbd798e44470
("www: use PublicInbox::WwwStream") sitting in the stable-1.6
branch, would it be helpful to release v1.6.2 at some point?

I think 8b39c0757a7d6d62ff7f432c13ef4c497f1c804e
("ds: import croak properly") is worth pushing to stable-1.6,
maybe others...

Also, I'd appreciate if you or anybody else helps writing
release notes (in the form of what's in Documentation/RelNotes/)
since it's a bit of a drag for me.


> [1] https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/public-inbox

Re: public-inbox in Debian

[Uwe Kleine-König]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2707 bytes --]

Hello Eric,

On Thu, Mar 04, 2021 at 06:57:35PM +0000, Eric Wong wrote:
> Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de> wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 04, 2021 at 08:12:35AM +0000, Eric Wong wrote:
> > > Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de> wrote:
> > > I've been trying to get a new release out ASAP but there's too
> > > much left to do :<
> > > 
> > > > https://tracker.debian.org/news/1234849/accepted-public-inbox-160-1-all-source-into-unstable-unstable/
> > > 
> > > Any particular reason the package is 1.6.0-1 despite the
> > > 
> > > 	"* Include changes from upstream bugfix release 1.6.1"
> > > 
> > > change entry?  Anyways, no big deal and thanks again for all
> > > your work.
> > 
> > Funny you ask. I chose to do it that way because I expected that an
> > eventual 1.7.0 release won't include 1.6.1 as an ancestor and I thought
> > it a good idea to have my upstream branch to be fast-forward only.
> 
> Actually, I merged 1.6.1 back into the tip of whatever branch
> I was using and pushed it to master:
> 
> d49c0789d208e66121bfb68ff0c48d7612a7cd8e ("Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/lei' into eidx")
> 8862c33ae93eea1af6246cd3c7a81e0a122186bf ("Merge tag 'v1.6.1' into eidx")

Ah, so this makes it easier for me. Will fix the versioning in the next
upload.

> Btw, since there's bb928d88ed4c72241a8d76bc792cdbd798e44470
> ("www: use PublicInbox::WwwStream") sitting in the stable-1.6
> branch, would it be helpful to release v1.6.2 at some point?

I have that patch already included in 1.6.0-1. :-) So the gain of you
releasing a 1.6.2 with that patch is that it becomes more obvious that
this patch is already included in the Debian package (assuming I fix the
versioning as I intend to do). Having said that I think it's only
sensible to release 1.6.2 if 1.7.0 will take some time. Unless 1.7.0 is
utterly broken I'd prefer to package that instead of 1.6.2.

> I think 8b39c0757a7d6d62ff7f432c13ef4c497f1c804e
> ("ds: import croak properly") is worth pushing to stable-1.6,
> maybe others...

Sounds similar to the WwwStream patch. I didn't notice a breakage
though.

> Also, I'd appreciate if you or anybody else helps writing
> release notes (in the form of what's in Documentation/RelNotes/)
> since it's a bit of a drag for me.

That's understandable, I don't like writing documentation either :-) I
think I'm of no good help here, as I don't follow the development
closely and would rather consume instead of produce a release note.

Best regards
Uwe

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           | Uwe Kleine-König            |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]