Re: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2016-08-12)
On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 12:34 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Stephen Gallagher wrote: >> * #1592 - Redefinition of what constitutes a secondary/alternate >> ~ architecture in Fedora (sgallagh, 16:04:18) >> ~ * AGREED: FESCo approves the new alternative architectures plan (+7, >> ~0, -0) (sgallagh, 16:11:29) > > Sigh! So the proposal to break Fedora got unanimously approved without > restrictions. I wonder why you requested a mailing list thread to be opened > at all, given that you simply completely ignored the mailing list feedback. > The "feedback request" from the proposal owners was already worded as if the > mailing list thread was only a formality, and it looks like they were right. Not going the way you wanted it to and ignoring the email thread are not the same thing. There was feedback that was taken into account as part of the proposal that came from the mailing list, given I'm the proposal owner (but not the only one involved) I did not vote (and I'm not on FESCo to vote anyway) so I can't comment on behalf of FESCo as to whether that feed back had any impact on their vote. > I still do not see why every exotic architecture no real user cares about > has to fail our builds instead of being built in its own koji-shadow sandbox > where it can only break itself. There was no satisfactory answer to that. > Our actual users use x86 machines. Delaying the builds for the machines our > users use by some indefinite time because of some obscure toolchain bug > affecting some toy machine only a couple people at Red Hat or at some > university have sitting on their desk helps no one. Real users do NOT use > dev boards without even a case, FPGA development kits, or similar developer > toys. They use "a computer", which out there in the real world means x86. See that's where we disagree, there are 1000s of users that use those, you could also argue that the vast majority of Fedora instances aren't desktop platforms but servers/VMs and other non desktop usecases (I know of one company running Fedora on over a million ARM devices) yet we still care about and ship various desktops too or some of the weird 18K odd source packages that we also distribute the binaries for. There are users of these out in the wider Fedora ecosystem that benefit from all these different options and even though they don't fit in YOUR definition of a "real world" user it doesn't mean they're not. Fedora is very much about options and diversity whether that be people, language, location, desktop or architecture :-) Peter -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2016-08-12)
On 14/08/16 08:49, Peter Robinson wrote: See that's where we disagree, there are 1000s of users that use those, you could also argue that the vast majority of Fedora instances aren't desktop platforms but servers/VMs and other non desktop usecases (I know of one company running Fedora on over a million ARM devices) yet we still care about and ship various desktops too or some of the weird 18K odd source packages that we also distribute the binaries for. There are users of these out in the wider Fedora ecosystem that benefit from all these different options and even though they don't fit in YOUR definition of a "real world" user it doesn't mean they're not. Fedora is very much about options and diversity whether that be people, language, location, desktop or architecture :-) I'm sure most of us would love to support all these platforms in principle but that doesn't really help with the practical problems of trying to do so. The change proposal states, for example, that there is either access to hardware or the secondary architecture teams will help but that doesn't really square with my experience. The secondary architecture teams just open bugs and punt things back to the packager and none of these new architectures seems to have any hardware listed in the wiki. So with that I'll go back to trying to find a way to reproduce the aarch64 bug you reported on one of my packages the other day... Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2016-08-12)
>> See that's where we disagree, there are 1000s of users that use those, >> you could also argue that the vast majority of Fedora instances aren't >> desktop platforms but servers/VMs and other non desktop usecases (I >> know of one company running Fedora on over a million ARM devices) yet >> we still care about and ship various desktops too or some of the weird >> 18K odd source packages that we also distribute the binaries for. >> There are users of these out in the wider Fedora ecosystem that >> benefit from all these different options and even though they don't >> fit in YOUR definition of a "real world" user it doesn't mean they're >> not. Fedora is very much about options and diversity whether that be >> people, language, location, desktop or architecture :-) > > > I'm sure most of us would love to support all these platforms in principle > but that doesn't really help with the practical problems of trying to do so. > > The change proposal states, for example, that there is either access to > hardware or the secondary architecture teams will help but that doesn't > really square with my experience. The secondary architecture teams just open > bugs and punt things back to the packager and none of these new > architectures seems to have any hardware listed in the wiki. The "just open bugs and punt things back to the packager" is completely unture. There's bugs opened for tracking purposes, in a lot of cases the maintainers know the packages better and often fix it, but there are 100s of packages fixed by the secondary teams all the time just look through the average rawhide or branched reports and there's names of those teams appearing all the time! On the hardware side of things there's numerous ways go getting access to hardware, we now have a pair of very large Power8 boxes in the Fedora cloud instance, there's a number of universities that provide access to IBM Power and Z-series devices and Linaro has a means of providing access to aarch64 hardware, and there will soon be aarch64 hardware in the Fedora cloud instance too. > So with that I'll go back to trying to find a way to reproduce the aarch64 > bug you reported on one of my packages the other day... > > Tom > > -- > Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) > http://compton.nu/ > > -- > devel mailing list > devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2016-08-12)
Peter Robinson wrote: > There was feedback that was taken into account as part of the proposal > that came from the mailing list, Only in the form of more writeup in the Q&A section giving various excuses for not addressing any of the fatal flaws that were pointed out in the thread (such as the "fail on one = fail on all" principle). You did not change anything whatsoever in the substance of the proposal. > See that's where we disagree, there are 1000s of users that use those, > you could also argue that the vast majority of Fedora instances aren't > desktop platforms but servers/VMs and other non desktop usecases (I > know of one company running Fedora on over a million ARM devices) yet You mean the same company whose (x86-based) 1.0 hardware FESCo rendered almost worthless by not doing anything about the accumulating bloat that is increasing the size of all our images from release to release (starting from the "Mini"DebugInfo "feature" that globally increased the size of all packages for very little benefit, but that has also served as a general precedent for making bloat that makes an image fail its size target always the fault of the image's size target rather than of the bloat) and thus making it almost impossible to stick a current Fedora into its limited storage space? How long until that issue hits 1.5 too? > we still care about and ship various desktops too or some of the weird > 18K odd source packages that we also distribute the binaries for. > There are users of these out in the wider Fedora ecosystem that > benefit from all these different options and even though they don't > fit in YOUR definition of a "real world" user it doesn't mean they're > not. Fedora is very much about options and diversity whether that be > people, language, location, desktop or architecture :-) What does diversity of people have to do with this? By your strange definition of "diversity", we should try to run Fedora on a toaster, or even on a dead badger. We would NOT be excluding any ethnic or social group of people by supporting only x86. CPUs do not have human rights. So I sense a strawman (or worse, an attempt to defame me by putting my position into a completely different context). Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Access to hardware (was: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2016-08-12))
Peter Robinson wrote: > On the hardware side of things there's numerous ways go getting access > to hardware, we now have a pair of very large Power8 boxes in the > Fedora cloud instance, there's a number of universities that provide > access to IBM Power and Z-series devices and Linaro has a means of > providing access to aarch64 hardware, and there will soon be aarch64 > hardware in the Fedora cloud instance too. Access to some of that hardware could have helped me recently when I was working on GPRbuild. Out of the four secondary architectures, I eventually managed to get one of them hobbling in an emulator so that I could troubleshoot. Then I probed the Koji instances with specially crafted scratch builds to get the details I needed for the other architectures. It was a quite time-consuming procedure. Would it be possible to mention those boxes on https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Machine_Resources_For_Package_Maintainers so that packagers can find out how to access them? Björn Persson pgp6J8PN7VBZM.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signatur -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Removing aliases on bugzilla
Hi, Probably you've seen some strange activity from me like removing aliases from old (and new) bugs. Actually there is bug in bugzilla which prevents searching by text which is written in some bug's alias. Unfortunately I didn't realize when I ran script that it will send ton of notifications and that it's actual bug of buzilla (I thought it's a feature). Sorry for noise. -- -Igor Gnatenko -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2016-08-12)
On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 11:29:13AM +0100, Peter Robinson wrote: > On the hardware side of things there's numerous ways go getting access > to hardware, we now have a pair of very large Power8 boxes in the > Fedora cloud instance, Peter, is it possible to set up long-term access to a POWER virtual machine? By this I mean, I want to create a cloud instance that will persist for months/years. Of course I won't actually be using it that whole time, it'll be almost entirely idle. I find this helps me with debugging because I don't have to recreate the environment whenever I need to debug something. Rich. -- Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones Read my programming and virtualization blog: http://rwmj.wordpress.com libguestfs lets you edit virtual machines. Supports shell scripting, bindings from many languages. http://libguestfs.org -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2016-08-12)
On Sun, 14 Aug 2016 19:52:21 +0100 "Richard W.M. Jones" wrote: > On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 11:29:13AM +0100, Peter Robinson wrote: > > On the hardware side of things there's numerous ways go getting > > access to hardware, we now have a pair of very large Power8 boxes > > in the Fedora cloud instance, > > Peter, is it possible to set up long-term access to a POWER virtual > machine? By this I mean, I want to create a cloud instance that will > persist for months/years. > > Of course I won't actually be using it that whole time, it'll be > almost entirely idle. > > I find this helps me with debugging because I don't have to recreate > the environment whenever I need to debug something. I'm planning (probibly next week, if I can kick this flu) to setup a ppc64le test machine, just like the other test machines... Hopefully that will help out. We can do the same for aarch64 in a few weeks when we have them available in the right place. kevin pgpCE7RTrAZVQ.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2016-08-12)
On 08/14/2016 08:52 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 11:29:13AM +0100, Peter Robinson wrote: On the hardware side of things there's numerous ways go getting access to hardware, we now have a pair of very large Power8 boxes in the Fedora cloud instance, Peter, is it possible to set up long-term access to a POWER virtual machine? By this I mean, I want to create a cloud instance that will persist for months/years. Of course I won't actually be using it that whole time, it'll be almost entirely idle. Why can't you automate the machine setup? Wouldn't be the first thing after not using it for a few months a reinstallation anyway, to be in a known-good state? Florian -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2016-08-12)
On Sun, 14 Aug 2016 01:34:18 +0200 Kevin Kofler wrote: > Sigh! So the proposal to break Fedora got unanimously approved > without restrictions. I wonder why you requested a mailing list > thread to be opened at all, given that you simply completely ignored > the mailing list feedback. The "feedback request" from the proposal > owners was already worded as if the mailing list thread was only a > formality, and it looks like they were right. Well, I can't speak for all of FESCo, but I read all the feedback. > I still do not see why every exotic architecture no real user cares > about has to fail our builds instead of being built in its own > koji-shadow sandbox where it can only break itself. It's not "every exotic architecture", it's the alternative arches that have for the last several Fedora releases releases on or very close to the same day as primary. > There was no > satisfactory answer to that. Our actual users use x86 machines. > Delaying the builds for the machines our users use by some indefinite > time I don't think anyone said "indefinite" time. As with anything else common sense should be used. If the bug cannot be fixed and is holding back something important you can exclude arch to get the other builds flowing while the bug is worked on. > because of some obscure toolchain bug affecting some toy machine > only a couple people at Red Hat or at some university have sitting on > their desk helps no one. Real users do NOT use dev boards without > even a case, FPGA development kits, or similar developer toys. They > use "a computer", which out there in the real world means x86. No, it helps everyone. Many bugs on these other arches turn out to expose bugs on x86 too. If we wanted to change and be a distro for only the most popular things we would just drop Fedora and focus on EPEL. As always we can also see how the addition of aarch64 goes and if it presents burden revisit things. The sky: not falling. kevin pgpkgH6VhJyVd.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2016-08-12)
On Sun, 14 Aug 2016 12:57:52 -0600 Kevin Fenzi wrote: > I'm planning (probibly next week, if I can kick this flu) to setup a > ppc64le test machine, just like the other test machines... Hopefully > that will help out. > > We can do the same for aarch64 in a few weeks when we have them > available in the right place. Oh, and I forgot, we are working on giving access to our private cloud to members of some groups (starting with packager/qa). Once we do that anyone who is a packager can just spin up an instance for testing. kevin pgpOilycz9Kzl.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Removing aliases on bugzilla
Igor Gnatenko wrote: > Probably you've seen some strange activity from me like removing > aliases from old (and new) bugs. > > Actually there is bug in bugzilla which prevents searching by text > which is written in some bug's alias. Unfortunately I didn't realize > when I ran script that it will send ton of notifications and that it's > actual bug of buzilla (I thought it's a feature). > > Sorry for noise. Removing those aliases is a horrible idea to begin with. Those aliases are an extremely convenient way to quickly find the review request for a package. (They should really be required for all review requests.) Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Removing aliases on bugzilla
On 15/08/16 03:38, Igor Gnatenko wrote: > Actually there is bug in bugzilla which prevents searching by text > which is written in some bug's alias. Is there a bug open for this? Cheers, Jeff. -- Jeff Fearn Senior Software Engineer PnT - DevOps - Development Red Hat Asia Pacific Pty Ltd http://dilbert.com/fast/2004-08-17/ PGP Fingerprint: B61A DC52 3E0E B17C 94D7 945C BB37 478C F119 9BCA -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2016-08-12)
Kevin Fenzi wrote: > No, it helps everyone. Many bugs on these other arches turn out to > expose bugs on x86 too. All the ones I ran into were bugs or obscure limitations in the toolchain that were entirely target-specific. They weren't even bugs in the package that failed to build, let alone ones that would also affect x86. For the rare latent bug that gets uncovered by a build failure on a secondary architecture, detecting it in koji-shadow is good enough, it does not have to fail the x86 build immediately. Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Removing aliases on bugzilla
On Sun, 2016-08-14 at 19:38 +0200, Igor Gnatenko wrote: > Hi, > > Probably you've seen some strange activity from me like removing > aliases from old (and new) bugs. > > Actually there is bug in bugzilla which prevents searching by text > which is written in some bug's alias. Unfortunately I didn't realize > when I ran script that it will send ton of notifications and that it's > actual bug of buzilla (I thought it's a feature). > > Sorry for noise. Please do not remove any aliases from blocker tracker bugs, they are a vital part of the process. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Removing aliases on bugzilla
Hi, On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 11:08 PM, Igor Gnatenko wrote: > Hi, > > Probably you've seen some strange activity from me like removing > aliases from old (and new) bugs. > > Actually there is bug in bugzilla which prevents searching by text > which is written in some bug's alias. Unfortunately I didn't realize > when I ran script that it will send ton of notifications and that it's > actual bug of buzilla (I thought it's a feature). Can you let us know about what bug are you seeing in bugzilla? Have you reported it already so that bugzilla maintainers can look at it? Please don't remove aliases they are useful to many people. Regards, Parag. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Removing aliases on bugzilla
I didn't remove bugs from any tracker bugs. Only for closed bugs with flag fedora-review+. -Igor Gnatenko On Aug 15, 2016 3:12 AM, "Adam Williamson" wrote: > On Sun, 2016-08-14 at 19:38 +0200, Igor Gnatenko wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Probably you've seen some strange activity from me like removing > > aliases from old (and new) bugs. > > > > Actually there is bug in bugzilla which prevents searching by text > > which is written in some bug's alias. Unfortunately I didn't realize > > when I ran script that it will send ton of notifications and that it's > > actual bug of buzilla (I thought it's a feature). > > > > Sorry for noise. > > Please do not remove any aliases from blocker tracker bugs, they are a > vital part of the process. > -- > devel mailing list > devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Removing aliases on bugzilla
Will open it today. -Igor Gnatenko On Aug 15, 2016 1:23 AM, "Jeff Fearn" wrote: > On 15/08/16 03:38, Igor Gnatenko wrote: > > Actually there is bug in bugzilla which prevents searching by text > > which is written in some bug's alias. > > Is there a bug open for this? > > Cheers, Jeff. > > -- > Jeff Fearn > Senior Software Engineer > PnT - DevOps - Development > Red Hat Asia Pacific Pty Ltd > http://dilbert.com/fast/2004-08-17/ > PGP Fingerprint: B61A DC52 3E0E B17C 94D7 945C BB37 478C F119 9BCA > -- > devel mailing list > devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Removing aliases on bugzilla
On 08/14/2016 07:38 PM, Igor Gnatenko wrote: Probably you've seen some strange activity from me like removing aliases from old (and new) bugs. Actually there is bug in bugzilla which prevents searching by text which is written in some bug's alias. Unfortunately I didn't realize when I ran script that it will send ton of notifications and that it's actual bug of buzilla (I thought it's a feature). I believe I have recovered the aliases which were removed, in case someone wants to undo the damage. Florian bug_id | removed -+-- 1356907 | rust 1302909 | drupal8 1288739 | petpvc 1290995 | python-visionegg-quest 1123645 | mingw-libgee 1327218 | libvterm 122 | python-prov 1363935 | python-yara 1279579 | itktools 1123771 | mingw-rest 1336159 | golang-github-rubyist-tracerx 237741 | HTTP-Request-AsCGI 1082552 | mahout-collection-codegen-plugin 1245022 | ghc-base-compat 1151818 | nodejs-typeahead.js 1362265 | yara 1353000 | gns3-server 1279176 | isis 1285112 | DiffusionKurtosisFit 241078 | perl-Net-SSH2 1228089 | zetacomponents/base 472083 | perl-boolean 838775 | ghc-css-text 1320725 | phonon-qt5 846850 | rosa-launcher 462982 | buffer 886320 | mingw-nspr 996186 | python-argh 1016258 | mingw-log4c 735133 | kalzium 1136519 | f21-kde-theme 873454 | mate-image-viewer 1320583 | swiftmailer/swiftmailer 497192 | polkit-qt 910526 | kreversi 995167 | lokalize 1286460 | mcpanel 282261 | isync-review 452636 | mod_proxy_html 691894 | pyrit 952444 | drupal7-i18n_boxes 1021080 | Horde_Socket_Client 454416 | mingw32-zlib 566406 | packETH 693037 | perl-Test-HasVersion 492250 | perl-Git-CPAN-Patch 666889 | perl-Package-Pkg 851793 | mingw-fftw 886221 | python-dogpile-core 910481 | bomber 587915 | perl-Dir-Self 1327160 | unibilium 910388 | kpat 975281 | drupal7-metatag 455172 | perl-Convert-Ber-r. 853689 | libmateui 820659 | python-ufc 438406 | ufiformat 735147 | ktouch 520463 | perl-common-sense 670558 | ape 924897 | drupal7-boxes 235234 | aoetools 1304145 | kf5-libkexiv2 575491 | perl-Test-SharedFork 243978 | cjet-review 985065 | peg-solitaire 236539 | perl-Math-Vec 1228091 | zetacomponents/console-tools 567937 | mpir 962423 | writerperfect 1015909 | org.abego.treelayout.core 629551 | ghc-gio 235236 | vblade 499066 | perl-Text-Context 514911 | mvali...@redhat.com 1285514 | php-paragonie-random-compat 1003280 | postscriptbarcode 1288756 | python-amico 785448 | horde-autoloader 231753 | perl-DBD-Mock 1262469 | php-patchwork-utf8 1276910 | python-transforms3d 1278673 | octave-jsonlab 987731 | qt4pas 498887 | perl-Class-Mix 1258430 | dolphin 316971 | centerim-review 1332717 | kf5-incidenceeditor 735138 | khangman 498920 | perl-HTML-Toc 1118273 | Horde_OpenXchange 737228 | ghc-data-default 851180 | mingw-lcms 1086445 | dbusmenu-qt5 1277441 | nette/safe-stream 947640 | snappy-player 730033 | perl-autobox-dump 785473 | Horde_Perms 713361 | ghc-pcre-light 222597 | pear-Crypt-CHAP 765953 | qyoto 1319522 | kactivitymanagerd 234812 | tcpreplay 233742 | perl-Math-Spline 447844 | krazy2 714326 | libtpcmisc 167 | php-mtdowling-transducers 844154 | libmatekeyring 648100 | ghc-xml 1295260 | php-mnapoli-phpunit-easymock 467854 | parprouted 710907 | oct-specfun 1060989 | ghc-io-streams 1291341 | qt5-qtstyleplugins 454410 | mingw32-gcc 568052 | normaliz 464054 | projectM-pulseaudio 1004760 | ColPack 120 | python-pydotplus 499087 | perl-Locale-PO 1122325 | mingw-libtheora 491616 | mingw32-zfstream 894563 | Horde_SpellChecker 1149289 | telepathy-qt 1289634 | libchardet 882561 | mate-bluetooth 903826 | perl-Net-Domain-TLD 1277470 | nette/application 491647 | taglib-extras 495336 | perl-Sort-Key 1332254 | kf5-calendarsupport 970034 | libmm-qt 875308 | mate-menu-editor 251805 | orafce 1009375 | ghc-hslua 959664 | drupal7-language_cookie 498397 | perl-Devel-REPL 713677 | klt 436683 | xmltoman-review 720804 | kross-interpreters 959666 | drupal7-admin_language 589167 | perl-ParseTemplate 199029 | jokosher 261801 | xyz-gallery-review 771052 | kde-workspace 1048260 | qt5-qtlocation 1105550 | kf5-kdoctools 504076 | libiodbc 1278293 | python-moss 567733 | marave 495436 | perl-File-Pid (152 rows) -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Removing aliases on bugzilla
Me too. -Igor Gnatenko On Aug 15, 2016 8:41 AM, "Florian Weimer" wrote: > On 08/14/2016 07:38 PM, Igor Gnatenko wrote: > > Probably you've seen some strange activity from me like removing >> aliases from old (and new) bugs. >> >> Actually there is bug in bugzilla which prevents searching by text >> which is written in some bug's alias. Unfortunately I didn't realize >> when I ran script that it will send ton of notifications and that it's >> actual bug of buzilla (I thought it's a feature). >> > > I believe I have recovered the aliases which were removed, in case someone > wants to undo the damage. > > Florian > > > -- > devel mailing list > devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > > -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
