Bug#687632: pre-approve unblock: tryton-modules-calendar-classification/2.2.1-1
On Sat, 2012-09-15 at 10:05 +0200, Mathias Behrle wrote:
> > On 14.09.2012 13:01, Mathias Behrle wrote:
> > > * Convert buffer into string for vobject
> > That's really not a particular helpful description for deciding whether
> > the upload is appropriate for an unblock; upstream's changelog of "* Bug
> > fixes (see mercurial logs for details)" doesn't provide much elucidation
> > either.
> This issue is caused by the migration of the binary field format to buffer .
> Writing and reading from the DB affords the conversion from buffer to string.
> Would it be adequate to post for each package the link to the mercurial
> repository? The standard commit messages are linked to the reviews  and/or
> issue numbers in the bug tracker of tryton.org to provide easy tracking
> information. For this package the link can be found at .
>  http://codereview.tryton.org/426003/diff/1/calendar_.py
>  http://hg.tryton.org/2.2/modules/calendar_classification
Thanks for the links. It's possible I'm missing something, but from an
initial look they don't actually provide any further information on the
change. :-(  contains the one line diff which was already attached
to your mail. From there one can reach
http://codereview.tryton.org/426003/ , although the only information
there other than the diff is a "message" from the committer, which
appears to be entirely empty.
 leads to
http://hg.tryton.org/2.2/modules/calendar_classification/rev/efc13781a75e , which points to a commit from which the change was copied. That in turn is http://hg.tryton.org/modules/calendar_classification/rev/74d42794032d , which is simply exactly the same change on another branch with no comment / discussion there either.
I appreciate that from the perspective of someone who knows the code,
it's probably obvious why the change was required, but a one line of
something similar to "the field in the database is a string; we need to
cast as a result of moving to using a buffer in commit ABCDEF" would be
beneficial to those of us who don't. (I've possibly got the reasoning
wrong there, it was based on your comment above linking to .)
> What I did already per package is to summarize those commit messages
> as provided in the mercurial logs. Could you please just mark the
> messages, where you need more detailed information?
I'll have a go when I've got a little more free time to try and attack
them as a set. There are quite a lot of them to go through though (and
I notice some more this morning). :-(