False info on Mir's project page

Daniel van Vugt daniel.van.vugt at canonical.com
Fri Jul 11 06:53:24 UTC 2014


I am assuming that RTM != Utopic. RTM would be more stable fixed on 0.4 
while Utopic would be >=0.5.


On 11/07/14 14:51, Daniel van Vugt wrote:
> You know we could just let lp:mir/0.5 be the development branch and be
> more careful about noticing ABI breaks (at which point we must branch).
> Then everyone wins and lp:mir would be the development branch as well as
> one for packaging in Ubuntu-next.
>
> So long as distro releases didn't happen without warning, which I think
> they can't as we'd have to approve changelog additions, then why not let
> distro package from our latest and greatest code?
>
>
> On 11/07/14 14:43, Cemil Azizoglu wrote:
>> I raised this with the CI team. Well, they at least didn't shoot the
>> idea down right away and were willing to consider it. sil2100 said he'd
>> think over the consequences and get back to us.
>>
>> Apparently, there is an (un)written rule that one should be able to get
>> the latest distro code by pulling from lp:projname, which we would be
>> violated. I raised the point that it's important to have a coherent
>> launchpad project page.
>>
>> We'll see what happens.
>>
>> -Cemil



More information about the Mir-devel mailing list