[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Trac 0.12 backport do squeeze

Hi Daniel,

maybe I have already replid to this so sorry if you get this mail twice but apparently my mail setup is a bit bogus and I don't see all sent mails.

On 11/10/2011 12:03 AM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
Hi Manuel--

On 11/09/2011 05:53 PM, Manuel Holtgrewe wrote:
On 04.11.2011 15:33, Manuel Holtgrewe wrote:
I would like to have trac 0.12 as a squeeze backport.

This sounds great to me, and i can only encourage it.  It sounds to me
like you've done some decent investigation of the one corner case of the
unit tests which failed, and even that failure doesn't sound terrible.

If it's possible to document the test failure in a bug report to the
associated python package for squeeze, that would be a nice thing to do
(maybe one of the python maintainers could sort out the issue; and if
it's a non-invasive fix, it might even be a candidate for a point release).

Do you mean I should report the bug for squeeze that does not have the backported trac 0.12, do you mean I should report the bug for testing, or do you mean something else?

But aside from that, it sounds to me like you've done a fair amount of
diligence with the package.  If Arthur de Jong is willing to review your
backport and upload it to squeeze-backports, i'd say you should go ahead
with it.

Thanks for your work on trac and on squeeze-backports!

No problem. Rather, it's me having to thank you guys for providing official backports and all the work that comes with it so we seamlessly integrate important upgrades into Debian stable releases!


Reply to: