Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.maint.python > #9550 > unrolled thread

Re: [Python-modules-team] partd_0.3.8-1_source.changes ACCEPTED into unstable

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.maint.python

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: [Python-modules-team] partd_0.3.8-1_source.changes ACCEPTED  into unstable Barry Warsaw <barry@debian.org> - 2017-06-02 17:40 +0200
    Re: [Python-modules-team] partd_0.3.8-1_source.changes ACCEPTED  into unstable Ghislain Vaillant <ghisvail@gmail.com> - 2017-06-02 18:00 +0200

#9550 — Re: [Python-modules-team] partd_0.3.8-1_source.changes ACCEPTED into unstable

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Hi Diane,

On Jun 02, 2017, at 05:48 AM, Debian FTP Masters wrote:

> partd (0.3.8-1) unstable; urgency=medium
> .
>   * Switch from git-dpm to gbp

I may be misremembering our previous discussions on the topic, but we all know
that in the long term we want to convert off of git-dpm.

My recollection was that in the short term, "officially" we want to
opportunistically convert packages as an experiment, and to work out the steps
needed, so that at some time in the future, we'd mass migrate the bulk of our
packages.

I'm curious, did you follow the steps outlined in
https://wiki.debian.org/Python/GitPackagingPQ to do the conversion?  (Search
for "Converting git-dpm to gbp pq") or did you follow some other process?  Are
you adopting gbp-pq for your own workflow?  Do you have any insights that will
help others convert, or that can guide our future mass migration?  Is there
anything you can add to the wiki page to help others when they
opportunistically convert?

For the team: should we just allow opportunistic conversions and live with a
mixed git-dpm/gbp state in our packages for a while?

Cheers,
-Barry

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#9551

On Fri, 2017-06-02 at 11:35 -0400, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> Hi Diane,
> 
> On Jun 02, 2017, at 05:48 AM, Debian FTP Masters wrote:
> 
> > partd (0.3.8-1) unstable; urgency=medium
> > .
> >   * Switch from git-dpm to gbp
> 
> I may be misremembering our previous discussions on the topic, but we all know
> that in the long term we want to convert off of git-dpm.

Indeed.

> My recollection was that in the short term, "officially" we want to
> opportunistically convert packages as an experiment, and to work out the steps
> needed, so that at some time in the future, we'd mass migrate the bulk of our
> packages.

Correct. However, I have collaborated with Diane on some of her
packages (dask) and the git-dpm setup was broken. So, I took this
opportunity to get rid of git-dpm and switch to gbp with her approval.

> I'm curious, did you follow the steps outlined in
> https://wiki.debian.org/Python/GitPackagingPQ to do the conversion?  (Search
> for "Converting git-dpm to gbp pq") or did you follow some other process?  Are
> you adopting gbp-pq for your own workflow?  Do you have any insights that will
> help others convert, or that can guide our future mass migration?  Is there
> anything you can add to the wiki page to help others when they
> opportunistically convert?

I can't speak for herself for partd.

For dask, the patch queue was not recognized by git-dpm, so the source
tree was essentially in patch non-applied mode. The conversion was then
straightforward: delete .git-dpm, add gbp.conf and do a round trip of
gbp pq import / export.

> For the team: should we just allow opportunistic conversions and live with a
> mixed git-dpm/gbp state in our packages for a while?

IMO, I believe it is not the end of the world, but I am obviously
biased.

Ghis

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.maint.python

csiph-web