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

Re: Upload of GNOME 2.8 to unstable



El mar, 16-11-2004 a las 14:25 +0100, Wouter Verhelst escribió:
> Op di, 16-11-2004 te 06:44 -0600, schreef Ron Johnson:
> > On Tue, 2004-11-16 at 13:12 +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > > Op di, 16-11-2004 te 12:57 +0100, schreef Martin Schulze:
> > > > Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > > > > It is. This is a myth which orignated due to the fact that my
> > > > > wanna-build documentation at
> > > > > http://people.d.o/~wouter/wanna-build-states used to say wanna-build
> > > > > incorporates urgency in its ordering, but I was mistaken. It has been
> > > > > fixed in the mean time, but it appears this is a myth which isn't easily
> > > > > forgotten
> > > > 
> > > > Just to get this straight, you fixed your documentation, the buildd/wanna-build
> > > > handling hasn't been fixed, right?
> > > 
> > > Yes.
> > 
> > Because buildd/wanna-build was never broken (in this regards),
> > right?
> 
> Depends what you mean by broken ;-)
> 
> Wanna-build never considered a packages' urgency in its ordering. I
> thought it did, but was mistaken.

 I could swear that I have seen packages with urgency high slipping
before packages with urgency medium or low in the queue  for being
built. This happened when "inminent sarge release" was announced ;-)

 But perhaps I'm also wrong, and the myth hit me.

 Cheers,

-- 
Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo
   jsogo@debian.org

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Esta parte del mensaje =?ISO-8859-1?Q?est=E1?= firmada digitalmente


Reply to: