Rev 6022: (vila) Move news entries from 2.4 to 2.5 for patches landed after 2.4 in file:///home/pqm/archives/thelove/bzr/%2Btrunk/

[vila]

>>>>> Andrew Bennetts <andrew.bennetts at canonical.com> writes:


    > Vincent Ladeuil wrote:
    > […]
    >> Right, lp:bzr/2.4 wasn't properly redirected.
    >> 
    >> I didn't want to step over toes by landing stuff that weren't targeted
    >> at 2.4.

    > But they were targetted at 2.4!  After all I did add news entries to
    > doc/en/release-notes/bzr-2.4.txt,

As opposed to what ? bzr-2.5.txt wasn't existing ! You had no way to
target 2.5 and I had no way to resolve the ambiguity after the fact. The
safest was to let people do that by themselves while I was struggling
with the rest.

    > not out of reflex but because that's where I intended them to
    > land. If I didn't think they were suitable for 2.4 I certainly
    > wouldn't have done that.

Right, there was confusion, I trusted people to not land stuff on
bzr.dev while losas were creating the pqm branch (with the associated
lag), while I was encountering a transient error on pqm
(http://pad.lv/807032) while landing 2.4b5 and lp:bzr/2.4 wasn't
pointing to the right branch (which nobody realized until too late) and
it was the end of the week... and the trunk was still not open for 2.5...

    > I think a quick inspection would have made it clear that those
    > patches are safe for 2.4: they only affect selftest after all.

Right, that quick inspection was even quicker for people that landed
them. Another kind of quick inspection would have told them that after a
freeze, the trunk wasn't in the expected state and should not have been
used for landing.

Let's just fix the fallouts, the causes are known the solution obvious,
pointing fingers doesn't provide a lot of value there I think.

    >> > I guess I need to backport them now?
    >> 
    >> Yes, I sent a message to that effect when I opened 2.5.dev1.

    > I didn't notice that part of the message,

....

    > I guess I didn't pay attention to the “p.s.” buried at the end.  A
    > direct heads up to people whose patches may have been affected
    > would probably work better.

Right, it's a bit hard to know who doesn't read what :)

<snip/>

    > I've submitted a backport of those two patches now.  It seems
    > likely that all the other changes in that gap ought to be
    > submitted too, after checking that their release-notes entries are
    > still in the appropriate place.

I think jam *did* a quick inspection and said a single submission would
have been enough to address all of them ? No ?

     Vincent