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

Bug#701663: pre-approve unblock: tryton-server/2.2.7-1



* Betr.: " Re: Bug#701663: pre-approve unblock: tryton-server/2.2.7-1" (Fri, 15
  Mar 2013 19:24:30 +0000):

> Control: tag -1 + moreinfo
> 
> On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 09:55:17PM +0100, Mathias Behrle wrote:
> > Package: release.debian.org
> > Severity: normal
> > User: release.debian.org@packages.debian.org
> > Usertags: unblock
> > 
> > Dear release managers,
> > 
> > please approve the upload of tryton-server_2.2.7-1.
> > 
> > There were several bugfix releases in Tryton, that are out since a
> > considerable time and thus are well tested. I am filing this unblock
> > request for the server first to know if it finds the approval of the
> > release team. 
> > 
> > Once it is accepted I will file the unblock requests for the client and 16
> > modules. Those fixes are generally quite smaller than this one.
> 
> Your changelog doesn't indicate how serious the proposed fixes are and I
> don't have time to dig through upstream commits trying to work it out. If
> there were Debian bugs for them, what severity would each be?

This is my estimation with respect to debian bug severity:

 * Fix documentation about child
  * http://hg.tryton.org/2.2/trytond/rev/c9909a4825d1

-> minor

 * Fix domain concatenation between list and tuple
  * http://hg.tryton.org/2.2/trytond/rev/518c047f560e

-> important

 * Set domain_get mode correctly
  * http://hg.tryton.org/2.2/trytond/rev/2027979de6eb

-> important

 * Fix read related values of reference fields
  * http://hg.tryton.org/2.2/trytond/rev/bc728fcb3c49

-> important

 * fix use of password not in ASCII 
  * http://hg.tryton.org/2.2/trytond/rev/0b7f360ee251

-> important

 * Add missing context when filling cache from search
  * http://hg.tryton.org/2.2/trytond/rev/6841eaa2a624

-> important

 * local_cache and model2ids must depend on datetime
  * http://hg.tryton.org/2.2/trytond/rev/89d4d6c8c19a

-> important

Please take into account, that we are running those patches in
production already for considerable time. There should be absolutely low/no risk
to include them in r0.

Best regards,
Mathias

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: