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

Bug#985222: marked as done (unblock: ibus/1.5.24-1)

Your message dated Tue, 23 Mar 2021 22:19:56 +0100
with message-id <YFpbfHbfV2MCINNd@ramacher.at>
and subject line Re: Bug#985222: unblock: ibus/1.5.24-1
has caused the Debian Bug report #985222,
regarding unblock: ibus/1.5.24-1
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
985222: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=985222
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: release.debian.org

Hello Release Team,
I probably made a mistake. I uploaded ibus to unstable on 2021-03-03, and since it was well before 2021-03-12 I thought it would be treated as a Soft Freeze upload. But now I see at <https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/ibus> that it has been blocked by freeze since ibus is a key package.
The upload includes an upgrade to a new upstream release. At first hand I wanted to get the updated translations into bullseye. My reasoning behind bumping the upstream version follows. 

The upstream changes are summarized here:

https://github.com/ibus/ibus/releases/tag/1.5.24
* The most important change, the addition of a GTK4 IM module, is a no-op for us at this time, since the upload was built without GTK4 support.
* The dialog to warn about deprecated IBus XKB engines is already in testing via a patch that cherry picks the upstream change.
* The other non-translation changes are minor (upstream) bug fixes and improvements, which I deemed to be within the scope of a Soft Freeze upload.
So if you agree that the changes are low risk, it would be great if you could unblock ibus and with that effectively treat the upload as a Soft Freeze one.
I attached the debdiff between testing and unstable. It's big.. But I ask you to evaluate it in the light of my reasoning above. 

Please let me know if you need more input from me before your decision.

--
Regards,

Gunnar Hjalmarsson
https://launchpad.net/~gunnarhj

Attachment: ibus_1.5.23-2_1.5.24-1.diff.gz
Description: application/gzip

Attachment: OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
On 2021-03-19 00:37:52 +0100, Gunnar Hjalmarsson wrote:
> Control: tags -1 - moreinfo
> 
> Hi Sebastian!
> 
> On 2021-03-18 22:29, Sebastian Ramacher wrote:
> > Hi Gunnar
> > 
> > On 2021-03-14 17:03:23 +0100, Gunnar Hjalmarsson wrote:
> > > Package: release.debian.org
> > > 
> > > Hello Release Team,
> > > 
> > > I probably made a mistake. I uploaded ibus to unstable on 2021-03-03, and
> > > since it was well before 2021-03-12 I thought it would be treated as a Soft
> > > Freeze upload. But now I see at <https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/ibus> that
> > > it has been blocked by freeze since ibus is a key package.
> > > 
> > > The upload includes an upgrade to a new upstream release. At first hand I
> > > wanted to get the updated translations into bullseye. My reasoning behind
> > > bumping the upstream version follows.
> > > 
> > > The upstream changes are summarized here:
> > > 
> > > https://github.com/ibus/ibus/releases/tag/1.5.24
> > > 
> > > * The most important change, the addition of a GTK4 IM module, is a no-op
> > > for us at this time, since the upload was built without GTK4 support.
> > > 
> > > * The dialog to warn about deprecated IBus XKB engines is already in testing
> > > via a patch that cherry picks the upstream change.
> > > 
> > > * The other non-translation changes are minor (upstream) bug fixes and
> > > improvements, which I deemed to be within the scope of a Soft Freeze upload.
> > > 
> > > So if you agree that the changes are low risk, it would be great if you
> > > could unblock ibus and with that effectively treat the upload as a Soft
> > > Freeze one.
> > > 
> > > I attached the debdiff between testing and unstable. It's big.. But I ask
> > > you to evaluate it in the light of my reasoning above.
> > 
> >   208 files changed, 8499 insertions(+), 2691 deletions(-)
> > 
> > That's too much for us to review.
> 
> Actually I agree. If I had realized that it was too late to migrate without
> a release team review, I hadn't uploaded the new upstream version. Now I
> have learned that the dates in the freeze policy timeline do not refer to
> uploading, as I thought, but to migration.
> 
> > Could you please provided a filtered diff which only contains the relevant
> > changes?
> 
> TBH I think it would not be worth it. Too much work both for me and for the
> release team.

Let's close it then.

> I filed this bug in the hope that you would overlook my mistake and unblock
> without really reviewing the whole diff. After all it would probably have
> been in bullseye now if I had uploaded it two days earlier...
> 
> But staying with 1.5.23-2 in bullseye is fine too. The translations I wanted
> to get in are not so important.
> 
> My upload to unstable can't be undone. Is it ok to simply keep the block for
> bullseye and let it migrate to testing later? If it is - and if you haven't
> changed your mind ;) - I would suggest that you tag this bug "wontfix". I'll
> respect and understand that. Lesson learned.

The situation is not optimal. If there is a need to fix an issue in ibus
in bullseye, we'd probably require a revert in unstable.

Cheers

> 
> -- 
> Regards,
> 
> Gunnar Hjalmarsson
> https://launchpad.net/~gunnarhj
> 




-- 
Sebastian Ramacher

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


--- End Message ---
Reply to: