Good afternoon. Can you hear me?

Good afternoon. Sorry for the delay.

Welcome to Lightning Talks!

We have... 5 people doing 6 things,

and first up is Sean.

Hello!

Uh, I'm Sean.

Um, so,

Dgit is a multifaceted project

trying to solve a lot of problems at once

and the source package certainly is
(one of those)

I wanted to briefly talk about

one of the things that dgit makes better, that

is the reason why you should consider

incorporating dgit push

into your existing workflows.

So, one of the things that 
we offer our users

in our stable releases

is that(?) we say:
Look, we are going to make sure

that you can do
apt-get source,

apt-get build-dep <package name>

and then, it will (be) built

Right? That's one of the things we ensure

and it's a nasty bug if that doesn't work.

But, apt-get source is a
pretty old-fashioned way

to get a source for something
running on your computer.

in particular, like you can't
commit things

and then revert them

you can't make branches

you can't manipulate the source
in all the ways you can with git.

So, often what I think people will

probably do

is apt-get source and then just
commit everything to git.

Now, dgit clone is kind of a
shortcut there

dgit clone will "apt-get source" and
commit it to git, roughly.

(there's more stuff going on)

But that's one way to understand it.

And that's the git history you get,
if you type dgit clone

when the maintainer just uploaded
the package with dput.

So, it's kind of useful, it's in git now,
so you can type git clean

and it's pretty convenient.

But I think we could do a lot better for
our users.

We could give them the whole packaging
history

and eventually even the upstream history.

Which is a lot powerful for debugging
problems on their system.

So, that's what you get when you do dgit
clone, when it wasn't dgit-pushed.

What happens when it was ?

Well, that's what you get.

If someone like I did, typed "dgit push",

then, when the user types "dgit clone",

they get this rich history, which is
useful information, for debugging,

making reverts, and upstream changes
for example, and then trying build it.

Or, you know, that kind of stuff.

And as you see, the dgit push command
has gbp in it.

Like this wasn't a fancy git (??)ry-based
workflow or anything like that.

All I did was drop dgit --gbp push

in my existing team gbp workflow.

So if you're in a team that has
gbp-based worflow,

consider incorporating dgit push
and give this extremely useful thing

to our users.

Thanks !

Right, next up is Judith,

telling us "debian lenny
worth every penny".

Ok

The main issue about -

I'm gonna talk about Debian Lenny -

Is "will you able to fill five minutes
with it ?"

But I'm prepared and I have a backup !

So, who of you is still using Lenny ?

Who of you plans to use Lenny ?

(laughs)

So that's great !

Lenny is not completely abandonned.

(??) What it was back in 2009 when it
was released ?

Everyone was using it, and now

you feel somehow lonely about it.

And of course there are reasons for it.

For example, it got security support
discontinued and doesn't does well.

And of course, a lot of fancy stuff is
missing, like html5.

This might not be an issue if you don't
like videos.

And even if you would have support for
html5, probably you wouldn't have support

for most of the codecs.