Merge lp://staging/~jelmer/bzr-upload/fix-2.4-compat into lp://staging/bzr-upload

Compatibility with bzr <= 2.4 is taken into account by the 1.0 series (see https://launchpad.net/bzr-upload which I just updated to clarify the policy).

Your proposal is merely a reverse of revno 89 ;)

Where did you encounter the issue and was it in a context where you should use lp:bzr-ipload/1.0 instead ?

Am 06/12/11 09:01, schrieb Vincent Ladeuil:
> Review: Needs Information
>
> Compatibility with bzr<= 2.4 is taken into account by the 1.0 series (see https://launchpad.net/bzr-upload which I just updated to clarify the policy).
>
> Your proposal is merely a reverse of revno 89 ;)
>
> Where did you encounter the issue and was it in a context where you should use lp:bzr-ipload/1.0 instead ?
>
I encountered this trying to upload a new version of bzr-upload to
Debian. Either way, I can just ship the Debian/Ubuntu package with this
change, it doesn't necessarily have to be in trunk.

Cheers,

Jelmer

Damn firefox (but still blame me ;) for losing unsent comment :-/

Compatibility with bzr-2.4 is what 1.0 series is targeted at.

Your proposal essentially revert revno 89.

In what context did you encounter the issue ? Is using the 1.0 series a better fit ?

> Damn firefox (but still blame me ;) for losing unsent comment :-/
>
> Compatibility with bzr-2.4 is what 1.0 series is targeted at.
It still claims compatibility for older versions of bzr in info.py.

> Your proposal essentially revert revno 89.
My changes fix r89 to work with both bzr.dev and older versions of bzr, without triggering deprecation warnings on either.

> In what context did you encounter the issue ? Is using the 1.0 series a better
> fit ?
I hit this uploading a new snapshot of bzr-upload to Debian, which has bzr 2.4 in unstable and 2.5 in experimental. This patch is already included in the Debian package. I'm mostly proposing this as a merge in case it's useful for upstream as well.

Cheers,

Jelmer

Am 06/12/11 09:01, schrieb Vincent Ladeuil:
> Review: Needs Information
>
> Compatibility with bzr<= 2.4 is taken into account by the 1.0 series (see https://launchpad.net/bzr-upload which I just updated to clarify the policy).
>
> Your proposal is merely a reverse of revno 89 ;)
>
> Where did you encounter the issue and was it in a context where you should use lp:bzr-ipload/1.0 instead ?
>
I encountered this trying to upload a new version of bzr-upload to
Debian. Either way, I can just ship the Debian/Ubuntu package with this
change, it doesn't necessarily have to be in trunk.

Cheers,

Jelmer