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

Re: RFS: roxterm (updated package)

On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 21:23:46 +0300
George Danchev <danchev@spnet.net> wrote:

> Tony Houghton writes:
> > However, due to a bug which can cause roxterm to crash unpredictably
> > (very serious because it can take any number of child processes with
> > it), discussed at
> > <http://sourceforge.net/projects/roxterm/forums/forum/422638/topic/3711088>
> > , I think replacement of 1.18.2-1 should be given fairly high
> > priority.
> It took me some time, and as I understand it, it is rev763, which
> fixes the above mentioned issue, thus wouldn't be safer to just
> backport that change (just reflecting connected/disconnected state) to
> the version in sid? It should also be fairly easy. I should also admit
> that the subsequent COLORTERM changes look trivial, and very low risk,
> thus these should also be acceptable, but if you ask me I'd still go
> for former (rev763 only), unless you have a better reason for the
> latter (more verbose changlogs are generally more helpful;-), so
> please let me know.

You're quite right, I need to get in a habit of being more verbose in my
commit messages to generate a better ChangeLog. Reviewing the other
changes myself:

I've improved the documentation, including changing a bit about how to
enable configurable keyboard shortcuts in GNOME, which had become out of
date. Documentation changes shouldn't give cause for concern about

Looking at r747 again, I can't find the bug report which triggered that,
but ISTR there was a visible problem. I think there's the possibility of
a divide by zero error, and it's a one line fix, so I really think I
should include that.

r746 is a one-liner which fixes two "not quite correct behaviour" bugs

r745 is more complicated and most people wouldn't notice the problem
so I'm happy to leave that out.

But with all the above that I think should go in, plus you accepting the
new *TERM feature, it seems like we might just as well release 1.18.4-1.
If you disagree and just want the important fixes, do you suggest
merging them into one "backported-bugfixes" patch or use a separate one
for each feature?

> P.S. I no longer intend to use that package, thus you will need
> another sponsor for it or alternatively complete the DM-state. However
> I intend to review and upload your urgent 'fixes' until after release
> of squeeze.

Can I ask why you no longer intend to use it? It shouldn't matter if you
stop sponsoring it, because at least one other DD has expressed
interest, and I am going to apply for DM. I've already had my key signed
but the signer is soon going to replace his key with a more secure one
and I thought maybe I should wait until he's signed mine with his new
key. Or does that not really matter at all and I should forge ahead

TH * http://www.realh.co.uk

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: