launchpad-dev team mailing list archive
-
launchpad-dev team
-
Mailing list archive
-
Message #06455
Re: Unable to figure out what to do for loggerhead
-
To:
Robert Collins <robertc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
-
From:
John Arbash Meinel <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
-
Date:
Thu, 10 Feb 2011 21:48:21 -0600
-
Cc:
Launchpad Community Development Team <launchpad-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
-
In-reply-to:
<AANLkTin9L39-vJhxt=k4Cd+W_0d-wWBUeA0dmWSYf4Bi@mail.gmail.com>
-
User-agent:
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101207 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.7
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 2/10/2011 9:02 PM, Robert Collins wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 10:59 AM, John Arbash Meinel
> <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> I'm still getting rejection messages trying to post any merge-proposal
>> stuff for loggerhead.
>
> I hope that that is fixed now.
>
>> I'm also stuck with stuff that was originally proposed against the old
>> lp:loggerhead, which is no longer the "future" branch, and I don't have
>> any idea what branch I'm actually supposed to be proposing against or
>> merging into. (nor what the correct method for doing so is.)
>
> If you are finessing the future stuff that was put off into the
> experimental branch, propose a merge to it and get it reviewed by a
> loggerhead-team member (which includes all of ~launchpad - so lots of
> folk that can help). To land in that branch, just land directly. I'd
> like to suggest that only direct fixes to make it ok to land that
> branch should be done there (that and merges from trunk to keep it
> fresh).
>
Landing stuff directly to loggerhead/experimental seems reasonable. But
I'd rather have PQM in front of lp:loggerhead (trunk). Is it reasonable
to ask for that?
I would assume we could use launchpad@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, but I'd sort of
rather not. "bzr selftest -s bp.loggerhead" takes less than 10s, and it
really sucks to have that queued up behind 4 Launchpad merge requests.
(which seem to take ~30min even though they don't run the test suite.)
For now, I can certainly be vigilant about running the test suite. It
feels funny to have it finish so quickly.
Though I'm also not testing against python-2.5, which I would like to
preserve compatibility with.
John
=:->
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Cygwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iEYEARECAAYFAk1UsYUACgkQJdeBCYSNAAMd2QCfQNXfZ792CP83E2Txz2QY10/P
YMMAoKzcf3itTM1SlOqc3RX4c+3zUVqD
=fa/t
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Follow ups
References