On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 01:54:08AM -0000, Chris Halse Rogers wrote:
> SRU team ack for the maverick-proposed upload. It has the unrelated
> change of adding maverick-updates to the sources, but that seems
> harmless.
Right, I added that as routine for post-release work so that future
changes to incorporated d-i components are pulled in.
> For the natty-proposed upload you've got an equivalent change to the
> sources, but also an update to the partman-auto version. Was that
> intentional? Given the low risk of regression I don't mind waving that
> through either, but I'd just like to check.
It was - I try to keep all the incorporated d-i components up to date.
It shouldn't make much difference for ubiquity since it mainly affects
LVM.
Incidentally, this is going to be a bit non-trivial to test for maverick
and natty. I'll probably roll new "daily" CD builds at some point so
that somebody can do QA using those.
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 01:54:08AM -0000, Chris Halse Rogers wrote:
> SRU team ack for the maverick-proposed upload. It has the unrelated
> change of adding maverick-updates to the sources, but that seems
> harmless.
Right, I added that as routine for post-release work so that future
changes to incorporated d-i components are pulled in.
> For the natty-proposed upload you've got an equivalent change to the
> sources, but also an update to the partman-auto version. Was that
> intentional? Given the low risk of regression I don't mind waving that
> through either, but I'd just like to check.
It was - I try to keep all the incorporated d-i components up to date.
It shouldn't make much difference for ubiquity since it mainly affects
LVM.
Incidentally, this is going to be a bit non-trivial to test for maverick
and natty. I'll probably roll new "daily" CD builds at some point so
that somebody can do QA using those.