Re: RFC: further parallelisation (dependency-based collection and check scripts)
Raphael Geissert <geissert@debian.org> writes:
> Russ Allbery wrote:
>> As for putting it into the next release, I'm okay with that, but my
>> inclination is to release what's currently in Git since it's all bug
>> fixes and relatively minor changes (and a whole ton of them), and then
>> commit this, Adam's work on *.changes as first-class objects, and the
>> manual rewrite and then stabilize that version as 2.4.0. Does that
>> sound okay? It seems like it would be a good idea to clean up all the
>> random false positives and accumulated minor stuff from the BTS in a
>> separate release from possibly destabilizing large changes.
> Yeah, that sounds okay. Adam's work on .changes files need to be updated
> to the latest changes (including the security bug fixes.)
Okay, sounds like a plan.
>> I didn't get anywhere near as much time to work on Lintian today as I
>> was expecting, but I can do an upload tomorrow morning if that sounds
>> reasonable.
> Okay, no problem. At the moment I'm running the test suite to see what
> else needs to be fixed (if it only didn't take that long... :)
Me too, since I have a sneaking suspicion that the checks/rules change I
just pushed, which should remove a bunch of false negatives for
arch-independent packages, will turn up all sorts of interesting things.
Hm, checks/rules should probably apply the regexes to anything in a target
matching override_* as well, shouldn't it?
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: