On 02/10/12 15:14, anonym wrote:
> 30/09/12 21:01, intrigeri wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> please, anyone who did the 0.18 release of tails-persistence-setup,
>> push your pristine-tar branch.
>
> I followed the instructions in
> contribute/release_process/persistence-setup, and that branch wasn't
> modified (i.e. it's still at commit 0bc2057). How can I fix this?
>
>> Other than that, a 0.18 release was made from the usual branches in
>> there, with stuff that is not be ready yet for merging into devel.
>> One drawback is that it has apparently blocked an improved t-p-s (with
>> bigger timeout) from entering Tails 0.13. I'd like to avoid this
>> happening again. I think we now have two possibilities:
>>
>> A. the NM presets persistence is finished and merged in time
>> => t-p-s 0.18 or greater is shipped into Tails 0.14,
>> with a (possibly much) bigger timeout. Great.
>>
>> B. the NM presets persistence is not finished and merged in time
>> => I'd rather not fork a branch off t-p-s 0.17 and prepare
>> 0.17.1 from there (overkill), so I think we should go for
>> a chroot_local-patches.
>>
>> So, I think I'll wait a few days (say, until next Thursday), and go
>> with #B if #A has not happened yet. Thoughts, better ideas?
>
> I'm gonna try for #A now:
>
> todo/persistence_preset_-_NM_connections has been implemented in
> feature/persistent_NM_connections. IMHO it's now in a good enough shape
> to be shipped in Tails 0.14, but there are some issues (see todo page):
>
> * violation of Single Responsibility Principle: Adding a 'gconf'
> persistence option would have to go into upstream live-boot,
> and IMHO this is way too Tails-specific for such inclusion. An
> alternative would be to put the code from commit 1d3cae2 in
> tails-greeter into our custom live-persist script. Since
> live-persist is the glue that fixes all the quirks we have with
> live-boot's vanilla persistence, this seems like a perfect fit.
> This is done in commits 77c3261 and 4db38e9.
>
> * "Connect automatically" checkbox gets unchecked on each boot: IMHO
> this bug is good :). Hence we can ignore this for now and just
> mention it as a known issue (commit 0f7f652).
>
> I also wrote the user documentation (commit 269b672).
Great! I fixed the language a bit with commit 4e08074.
