Re: RFC: further parallelisation (dependency-based collection and check scripts)
Russ Allbery wrote:
> Raphael Geissert writes:
>> I have to rebase my branch again because the addition of .changes files
>> as a kind of object to be tested conflicts with a change I made to the
>> lintian frontend to use a hash instead of a string to denote the
>> source/binary/udeb/changes types.
>
> Oh, sorry, I forgot about that. Although I suppose it was going to
> conflict no matter which one went in first.
Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> Sorry about that. :-s
Oops, looks like what I wrote sounded like I was sort of upset. Just to
clarify, I wasn't :)
Had I merged my branch first Adam would have had to rebase his work.
>
>> Will try to get to that tomorrow so that I push the changes before the
>> weekend.
I just merged and pushed my branch :)
>
> Thanks! I will then try to get the manual rewrite in, and then see what
> else can be accomplished before the next upload (since I'd like to let the
> last one age into testing).
I've some partial work in other branches but I don't think I will have time
to finish any of that soon.
> No guarantees for the next week or two, as I'm currently way behind on a
> bunch of different projects and I'm not sure what I'm going to manage to
> catch up on first.
Me neither (for the next week) as I will be on VAC. When I come back I might
spend an afternoon or something to fix bugs and stuff like that. If nobody
has time by then I might also make an upload (unless there's any objection,
of course :).
Cheers,
--
Raphael Geissert - Debian Developer
www.debian.org - get.debian.net
Reply to: