Please update glom to 1.6.17

[Murray Cumming]

Glom 1.6.17 is a bugfix release to the version, 1.6.14 that we have in Hardy. Changes:

1.6.17 (stable):

* Just a build fix.
  Bug #531983 (Funda Wang)

1.6.16 (stable):

* Fix the build with gcc 4.3.
  (Jeremiah Savage)
* Correct the parsing of, for instance, 01:00 PM and 13:00 when entered.
  (Murray Cumming)

1.6.15 (stable):

* Really automatically create related records, and save data in existing
  related records, when entering data in related fields.
  Bug #526386 (Jani Monoses).
* Relationships Editor: Clicking on the To Field combo lost the new choice in
  the Table combo, and did not update the To Field combo list, if clicking
  directly from combo to combo.
  Bug #526900 (Jani Monoses).
* Documentation: Remove sentences saying that names should not have spaces or
  special characters, because they can.
  Bug #528209 (Jean-François Fortin Tam)
  (Murray Cumming)

It would be nice to be able to have this update in Hardy so that glom users can benefit from the fixes.

Candidate .diff.gz: http://launchpadlibrarian.net/20829467/glom_1.6.17-0ubuntu1.1.diff.gz

[Emilio Pozuelo Monfort (pochu)]

This will fix bug 244712 in Intrepid

[Iain Lane (laney)]

I shall try to get this done tomorrow (29/07).

[Iain Lane (laney)]

Hmm, it doesn't look like we have goocanvasmm or bakery2.6 yet. The upgrade to 1.6.17 is simple enough so I'll do that for now, and maybe look into getting those libraries shortly.

[Iain Lane (laney)]

.diff.gz for intrepid. I don't know what the deal is with the Hardy task, will ask somebody in motu-sru for advice on it at some point soon.

[Launchpad Janitor (janitor)]

This bug was fixed in the package glom - 1.6.17-0ubuntu1

---------------
glom (1.6.17-0ubuntu1) intrepid; urgency=low

  * New upstream release (LP: #243163, #244712)
  * debian/glom.sgml: Update with current parameters.

 -- Iain Lane <email address hidden> Thu, 31 Jul 2008 23:25:19 +0100

[Iain Lane (laney)]

I shall try to get the SRU upload done in the next couple of days. In the meantime, if anyone has any time to write testcases for the bugs fixed that would speed the process along.

[Iain Lane (laney)]

Here's the SRU upload, which b/i/r fine. Still needs test cases though. I'm going away for a few days and don't know whether I'll be able to do them before then - it would still be great if someone else could.

[Murray Cumming (murrayc)]

What should these "test cases" look like? Why aren't the bug reports (mentioned in the NEWS file) good enough? Is this part of the new SRU policy?

[Iain Lane (laney)]

No, it's not new. From [0]:

  Update the bug report description and make sure it contains the following information: [...]
    Detailed instructions how to reproduce the bug. These should allow someone who is not familiar with the affected package to reproduce the bug and verify that the updated package fixes the problem. Please mark this with a line "TEST CASE:".

It's so that the SRU can be verified easily (and therefore copied from -proposed to -updates). Makes the work of SRU verifiers easier if all of the information they need is in one place.

Thanks, Iain

https://wiki.ubuntu.com/StableReleaseUpdates

[Devid Antonio Filoni (d.filoni)]

Iain, if possible you should include only patches that fix important bugs, not upload it to the new version (I'm talking about SRU).

[Murray Cumming (murrayc)]

I thought that the new SRU process allowed updates to new stable application versions in stable Ubuntu, without splitting it up into patches and imagining that you are capable of reviewing those patches.

[Iain Lane (laney)]

Devid, I've spoken with someone in MOTU-SRU (Luca) about this and it's fine to accept an upstream bugfix release providing it is that and doesn't introduce any new features. There's no problem with this providing that there are some testcases which SRU verifiers can use. I don't know if there's a general policy, but it's clearly OK on a case-by-case basis.

[Iain Lane (laney)]

I've talked to Sebastien Bacher about this and he said that the qualifier for new upstream bugfix releases being SRUed is just that there are no regressions. With this in mind, I'm going to ask for the SRU to be uploaded. Go for it, motu-sru!

[Murray Cumming (murrayc)]

Out of interest, how you decide that there are no regressions?

[Iain Lane (laney)]

I guess it's "everything that worked before still works now". Now obviously nobody is going to test *everything*, so I guess as long as anyone verifying the SRU doesn't find any new breakage then we should be fine.

[Murray Cumming (murrayc)]

Is there any way to make this update actually happen?

[Murray Cumming (murrayc)]

Sorry, I see now that Glom has 1.6.17, which is the latest. Many thanks for making that happen.

[Rolf Leggewie (r0lf)]

Hardy has seen the end of its life and is no longer receiving any updates. Marking the Hardy task for this ticket as "Won't Fix".