On Sat, 2010-02-27 at 02:09 -0500, Paul Wouters wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Feb 2010, Adam Williamson wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 2010-02-27 at 06:03 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> >
> >> 2) Recent dnssec-conf updates all did receive several -1, nevertheless
> >> these updates were pushed.
> >
> > This is indeed
On Fri, 26 Feb 2010, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-02-27 at 06:03 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>
>> 2) Recent dnssec-conf updates all did receive several -1, nevertheless
>> these updates were pushed.
>
> This is indeed a problem. Obviously, relying on the judgment of
> maintainers isn't w
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 23:48:47 -0600,
Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Bruno Wolff III said:
> > P.S. I don't use enablerepo. I'll yum install a local copy of the rpm and
> > see
> > what it needs if it doesn't install successfully.
>
> That seems like extra and unnecessary work. You
On Sat, 2010-02-27 at 06:03 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> 2) Recent dnssec-conf updates all did receive several -1, nevertheless
> these updates were pushed.
This is indeed a problem. Obviously, relying on the judgment of
maintainers isn't working.
...which is why there's a proposal not to rel
On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 22:50 -0500, Paul W. Frields wrote:
> * A notification mechanism for people who have a package installed
> that has known bugs. The notification mechanism should "pleasantly
> coerce" the user to test
this is a *terrible* idea. We may see users as a 'resource', but they
On Sat, 2010-02-27 at 01:36 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Mike McGrath wrote:
> > Just so you can't ever use this argument again. I want fewer updates and
> > I'm a Fedora user.
>
> IMHO you're really using the wrong distro. ;-)
IMNSHO, you are.
> My point is that there are plenty of users who
Once upon a time, Bruno Wolff III said:
> P.S. I don't use enablerepo. I'll yum install a local copy of the rpm and see
> what it needs if it doesn't install successfully.
That seems like extra and unnecessary work. You doesn't do anything
without telling you, so "yum --enablrepo=\*testing updat
On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 02:38:07 +0100,
Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> > I'd say not even that. If you miss a release, there is one coming up in
> > the not too distant future and it isn't a big deal. And if a few hardy
> > soles want to look at your stuff early, it is often the
On 02/27/2010 12:43 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 10:55 -0500, Paul Wouters wrote:
>
>> I requested a direct push to stable. Which was denied. I was unhappy that
>> we would not stop a DOS attack within weeks (my packages hardly ever get
>> any karma feedback despite their obvi
Once upon a time, Kevin Kofler said:
> Mike McGrath wrote:
> > Just so you can't ever use this argument again. I want fewer updates and
> > I'm a Fedora user.
>
> IMHO you're really using the wrong distro. ;-)
IMHO you're developing the wrong distro. It is statements like yours
that contribute
On 02/26/2010 08:18 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 08:15:43PM +0100, Till Maas wrote:
>
>> 1) to fix a bug or add a feature the maintainer experienced/uses
>
> If nobody is complaining about the bug, then fixing the bug can wait
> until the next Fedora release.
Good maintaine
On 02/26/2010 05:36 PM, Garrett Holmstrom wrote:
> On 2/26/2010 6:16, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> One possibility could be allowing pushes to stable if one of the
> following is true:
> * Net karma of at least +x
> * Positive karma from at least one member of QA or releng
> * At least y days have passed
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 04:22:37PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
> > Maybe some package rating included in PackageKit would be nice - for
> > stable packages it's indicator that this package is worth to install, for
> > testing package it would mean it's working (but again - w
On 2/26/2010 3:06 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Richard Zidlicky wrote:
>
>> lots of people. Some want to review changes manually and udpate only
>> "important" things,
>>
>> Others don not have gigabit internet access all around the clock. I am
>> trying to update my Netbook over a mobile connecti
On 2/26/2010 5:36 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Mike McGrath wrote:
>
>> Just so you can't ever use this argument again. I want fewer updates and
>> I'm a Fedora user.
>>
> IMHO you're really using the wrong distro. ;-)
>
> My point is that there are plenty of users who want the current upda
Till Maas wrote:
> I do not remember that I ever wanted to downgrade something except that I
> am still missing kpdf/kprinter, but both went away in a distribution
> upgrade.
kprinter is still available in the kdebase3 package. (Of course, it's still
the same old KDE 3 stuff, but it's expected to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02/27/2010 07:34 AM, Itamar Reis Peixoto wrote:
> hello guy`s
>
> what do you think about adding qwebirc [1] into fedoraproject website
> [2] in the section get-help ?
>
>
> 1 - http://www.qwebirc.org/
> 2 - http://fedoraproject.org/en/get-help
hello guy`s
what do you think about adding qwebirc [1] into fedoraproject website
[2] in the section get-help ?
1 - http://www.qwebirc.org/
2 - http://fedoraproject.org/en/get-help
--
Itamar Reis Peixoto
e-mail/msn/google talk/sip: ita...@ispbrasil.com.br
skype: itamarjp
icq
Adam Williamson wrote:
> The good is not the enemy of the perfect. A 90% chance of noticing a
> problem is still better than a 10% chance, even if it's not 100%.
That doesn't help when this takes a week and you break a dozen machines
while waiting for the "don't destroy hardware!" fix (and that's
Adam Jackson wrote:
> By my count, that's three misrepresentations in one paragraph. I
> certainly hope they were not deliberate.
I'm not deliberately misrepresenting anything or anyone, I just stated my
perception of the facts. It may well be that I missed some details in the
hectic and chaoti
Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> I'd say not even that. If you miss a release, there is one coming up in
> the not too distant future and it isn't a big deal. And if a few hardy
> soles want to look at your stuff early, it is often the case they can run
> the rawhide package on stable releases without too
Adam Williamson wrote:
> This is simply bad faith. I have seen absolutely no suggestion that the
> policy would be put out in such a way, and I can't see any basis you
> have to infer that. The suggestion that a draft version of the policy
> would be provided for feedback is not at all the same thi
Michael Schwendt wrote:
> Fedora Legacy, aka the barrel burst. More mandatory stuff, not enough
> free resources => failure.
Great point, thanks for pointing out a perfect example of what kind of bad
failure excess (and completely unnecessary) bureaucracy can cause!
What next? Are we going to re
On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 19:53 +0100, Till Maas wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 10:01:56AM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
> > On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 18:56 +0100, Till Maas wrote:
> > >
> > > Something I am dreaming about is to have some infrastructure to
> > > automatically test packages, so mabye they
Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> I was saying the EPEL policy seemed to be working well for EPEL.
> That wasn't a "We should immediately do this now in fedora", but just a
> datapoint.
I also didn't say that this would definitely be done. I just said the idea
was floated and MAY end up in the proposal (hopef
On Sat, 2010-02-27 at 01:54 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
> > A package destroying people's hardware shouldn't be there in the first
> > place, because it should have stayed in testing for an extended period
> > of time. Thus this is not a valid reason, as the other ones that we
Bill Nottingham wrote:
> To put it a different way, a large regression for our users far outweighs
> tha cost of any number (heck, even hundreds) of bugfixes having to wait
> a day, or two, or even a week.
>
> For most bugfixes, the user doesn't notice at all. When a user gets a
> bugfix on someth
Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Wait. You don't want policies designed to avoid pushing regressions, so
> that you can push fixes for the regressions you've given to people faster?
>
> That's... impressive.
The problem is that those policies don't prevent regressions from happening.
Bad stuff DOES slip
Matthew Garrett wrote:
> At the point where you have a reported bug, you have a tester.
Not necessarily. Sadly, there are people who report bugs and then don't read
their bugmail, ever. :-(
Kevin Kofler
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org
On Sat, 2010-02-27 at 01:36 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>
> > If I want lots of updates, I'd use rawhide.
>
> That doesn't fit the requirements of the group of users I think we should
> target (of which I'm part, but I can assure you I'm far from the only one in
> that group). Rawhide is freque
Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
> That is the point I completely disagree. It is a packager's very job
> to rehash upstream's changelogs. If a packager can't -at the very
> least- give a brief report of what he has accomplished, then he should
> reconsider his adequacy. At the minimal, a URL link to the upstr
On Sat, 2010-02-27 at 01:40 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Bill Nottingham wrote:
> > While the ethos as defined on the wiki mentions staying close to upstream
> > and getting the latest software, there's nothing that says that it's done
> > via updates. I would not categorically state that your read
On Sat, 2010-02-27 at 01:36 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>
> Mike McGrath wrote:
> > Just so you can't ever use this argument again. I want fewer updates and
> > I'm a Fedora user.
>
> IMHO you're really using the wrong distro. ;-)
>
> My point is that there are plenty of users who want the curre
Adam Williamson wrote:
> (oh, and also, when that field is empty for an update, PackageKit tells
> the user it's empty and shows them the changelog instead. Subbing in the
> changelog at the "show the user" stage is a sensible approach when the
> maintainer screwed up. Subbing in the changelog at t
Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
> A package destroying people's hardware shouldn't be there in the first
> place, because it should have stayed in testing for an extended period
> of time. Thus this is not a valid reason, as the other ones that were
> brought up were not.
What if nobody with that hardware wa
Bill Nottingham wrote:
> While the ethos as defined on the wiki mentions staying close to upstream
> and getting the latest software, there's nothing that says that it's done
> via updates. I would not categorically state that your reading is the
> only valid reading, or even close to the canonical
Mike McGrath wrote:
> Just so you can't ever use this argument again. I want fewer updates and
> I'm a Fedora user.
IMHO you're really using the wrong distro. ;-)
My point is that there are plenty of users who want the current updates or
even more updates. And whereas the people like you have p
Hi,
On 02/21/2010 02:15 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>Upgrade from 12+updates to 13+updates+testing
> ==
[...]
> Broken packages in fedora-12-x86_64:
>
> monodevelop-debugger-mdb-2.1.0-1.fc12.i686 requires
> mono(Mon
James Antill wrote:
> Are you really arguing that you never make mistakes?
No, that's not at all what I'm saying! I'm arguing that problems of the
"works on Fedora n, doesn't work on Fedora m" type are extremely rare and
that it's usually safe to assume that testing on one version of Fedora is
On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 14:56 -0600, Mike McGrath wrote:
> Do we know how other distros deal with this?
I can speak for Mandriva. Mandriva has /main and /contrib repositories
(and a couple of others for non-free stuff, but that's not important in
this context). /main contains officially-supported p
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 05:27:59PM -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> >
> > Regressions happen whatever policies are done. Imagine a specialized
> > package that hasn't any tester besides the maintainer (though it
> > has users), this was the case for most of the packages I maintained
> > in Fedora.
On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 18:56 +0100, Till Maas wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 05:07:24PM +, Jesse Keating wrote:
>
> > direct relationship. Maybe something in the Fedora Engineering Services
> > initiative could be to spend some time smoke testing updates-testing
> > stuff.
>
> Something I a
On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 15:46 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 10:34 -0600, Garrett Holmstrom wrote:
> > On 2/26/2010 7:26, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
> > > Another annoying issue is updates with no explanations. There is a
> > > "Notes" field in bodhi that many people just ignore for
On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 10:34 -0600, Garrett Holmstrom wrote:
> On 2/26/2010 7:26, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
> > Another annoying issue is updates with no explanations. There is a
> > "Notes" field in bodhi that many people just ignore for an unknown
> > reason. Any update with less than a specified numbe
On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 10:55 -0500, Paul Wouters wrote:
> I requested a direct push to stable. Which was denied. I was unhappy that
> we would not stop a DOS attack within weeks (my packages hardly ever get
> any karma feedback despite their obvious use, though I must say that did
> change for dnss
On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 16:40 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Transparency means asking for feedback BEFORE writing the policy. The sooner
I find this not to be the case. It's certainly a judgment call, not
something you can state as an absolute fact. I find it's better to
provide some shape to a dis
On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 23:06 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Richard Zidlicky wrote:
> > lots of people. Some want to review changes manually and udpate only
> > "important" things,
> >
> > Others don not have gigabit internet access all around the clock. I am
> > trying to update my Netbook over a mo
On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 08:22 -0600, Mike McGrath wrote:
> I think the problem there is most users aren't in the system and probably
> don't know / care about testing. They'll leave that to others, they don't
> want to be involved, they just want to use our stuff.
Most users? Sure. But that's not
On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 14:49 +0100, Till Maas wrote:
> Imho it is more a perversion of how it is meant to be. This package was
> tested before it went to updates-testing and therefore went straight to
> stable. But the majority of packages goes to updates-testing and is not
> tested by someone else
On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 14:07 +0100, Thomas Spura wrote:
> Am Freitag, den 26.02.2010, 00:58 +0100 schrieb Dominik 'Rathann'
> Mierzejewski:
> > On Thursday, 25 February 2010 at 22:29, Thomas Spura wrote:
> > >
> > > I need to write down a password into that file, for running a testsuite.
> > > If t
I'm putting my thoughts here... but this is again one of those threads
that has about 500 forks and people nit picking back and forth, so I am
never sure where to do a general reply. ;)
First some background:
a. There is no policy to discuss here, as we don't yet have a proposal.
I would expec
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 11:21:20PM +0100, Patrice Dumas wrote:
> Regressions happen whatever policies are done. Imagine a specialized
> package that hasn't any tester besides the maintainer (though it
> has users), this was the case for most of the packages I maintained
> in Fedora. A user wait f
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 11:22:25PM +0100, Till Maas wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 04:14:37PM -0500, James Antill wrote:
>
> > ...and as in all threads about this that I can remember, the obvious fix
> > to the above is having two repos. and let everyone who wants a giant
> > firehose of mostly
Patrice Dumas (pertu...@free.fr) said:
> > Not really. I use Fedora every day. The fact that I use it for packaging
> > things is a small small part of my usage of it. The extra 2 minutes or so
> > to twiddle an update differently is far far far outweighed by, say, X
> > exploding. Or thunderbird
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 04:14:37PM -0500, James Antill wrote:
> ...and as in all threads about this that I can remember, the obvious fix
> to the above is having two repos. and let everyone who wants a giant
> firehose of mostly working stuff can enable this second repo. if only we
> could create
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 04:50:20PM -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Patrice Dumas (pertu...@free.fr) said:
> > > > Bringinig down productivity of good packagers for a few bad ones, is,
> > > > in my opinion, not a good move.
> > >
> > > Fedora doesn't exist for the productivity of packagers. It e
drago01 wrote:
> And a packagemaintainer should be able to judge whether the package is
> worth pushing or not.
> "It has a higher version number" can't be the reason for that. (and I
> don't see how anyone can disagree with this but well ...)
Sure, there needs to be a reason to push something. Up
Kevin Kofler (kevin.kof...@chello.at) said:
> Richard Zidlicky wrote:
> > lots of people. Some want to review changes manually and udpate only
> > "important" things,
> >
> > Others don not have gigabit internet access all around the clock. I am
> > trying to update my Netbook over a mobile conne
Jesse Keating wrote:
> I take this to mean the first to include something in a release, as we
> develop it, not the first one to throw it over the wall at our users of
> a stable Fedora release.
Updates to stable releases are a big factor of uniqueness of Fedora and we'd
be throwing out the baby
On Fri, 26 Feb 2010, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
> > I didn't see many users complaining that there are too many updates.
> > But I saw many pissed off users because they don't have certain
> > updates and because they are told to wait 6 months.
>
> +1.
>
> Our users expect updates.
On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 22:51 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Jesse Keating wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 16:17 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> >> Most
> >> often what works on Fedora n also works on Fedora m. It's not like the
> >> reviewer tested on Slackware or OS X. ;-)
> >
> > "Most often". Su
Richard Zidlicky wrote:
> lots of people. Some want to review changes manually and udpate only
> "important" things,
>
> Others don not have gigabit internet access all around the clock. I am
> trying to update my Netbook over a mobile connection as I write this.
Those people should use a more co
Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
> I didn't see many users complaining that there are too many updates.
> But I saw many pissed off users because they don't have certain
> updates and because they are told to wait 6 months.
+1.
Our users expect updates. If they didn't want them, they'd use something
else. T
Michael Schwendt wrote:
> Some test updates just don't get any testing.
>
> Audacity 1.3.10-beta
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F12/FEDORA-2009-13139
> (2009-12-09 to 2010-01-26)
>
> Audacity 1.3.11-beta
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F12/FEDORA-2010-0968
> (since 2010-01-24
On Fri, 26 Feb 2010, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>> A quicker way of seeing if a bug report was alread made, and more
>> quickly being able to report bugs then spending 15-30 with bugzilla
>> would help me in reporting more bugs. I like the automated crash
>> reporting, though I'm not sure where they go, a
Jesse Keating wrote:
> It is an issue with the process when the process allows for these types
> of updates to go direct to stable without getting any karma along the
> way. It clearly illustrates that we need a system that protects our
> users from our maintainers, as our maintainers clearly cann
Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 16:17 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> Most
>> often what works on Fedora n also works on Fedora m. It's not like the
>> reviewer tested on Slackware or OS X. ;-)
>
> "Most often". Sure, that seems good enough to throw potential crap at
> users. Our os
Patrice Dumas (pertu...@free.fr) said:
> > > Bringinig down productivity of good packagers for a few bad ones, is,
> > > in my opinion, not a good move.
> >
> > Fedora doesn't exist for the productivity of packagers. It exists for
> > the productivity of our users.
>
> Both are related (except
Michael Schwendt (mschwe...@gmail.com) said:
> > To phrase a strawman differently:
> >
> > "No update is pushed to users without verification and testing from entities
> > other than the packager."
>
> No, thanks. The "popular"/"high profile" packages will get their usual
> rushed +1 votes in bo
2010/2/26 Bill Nottingham :
> Till Maas (opensou...@till.name) said:
>> I just have another idea: Add the karma value to the repository
>> metadata and write a yum plugin to only install packages with a certain
>> amount of karma. I just checked that stable packages may still receive
>> karma, so t
On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 21:43 +0100, Till Maas wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 01:16:43PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>
> > I would like to collect feedback on this issue. If you want to disable
> > direct stable pushes, why? Could there be a less radical solution to that
> > problem (e.g. a polic
On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 15:33 -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Jesse Keating (jkeat...@redhat.com) said:
> > On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 12:18 -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> > >
> > > Mainly, it removes the repository definitions in rawhide that don't make
> > > sense - the release, updates, updates-test
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 09:08:38PM +0100, drago01 wrote:
> And a packagemaintainer should be able to judge whether the package is
> worth pushing or not.
> "It has a higher version number" can't be the reason for that. (and I
> don't see how anyone can disagree with this but well ...)
This leads
Mike McGrath (mmcgr...@redhat.com) said:
> > > I just have another idea: Add the karma value to the repository
> > > metadata and write a yum plugin to only install packages with a certain
> > > amount of karma. I just checked that stable packages may still receive
> > > karma, so then everyone ca
Minutes:
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2010-02-26/fedora-releng.2010-02-26-18.00.html
Minutes (text):
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2010-02-26/fedora-releng.2010-02-26-18.00.txt
Log:
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2010-02-26/fedora-releng.20
On Fri, 26 Feb 2010, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Till Maas (opensou...@till.name) said:
> > I just have another idea: Add the karma value to the repository
> > metadata and write a yum plugin to only install packages with a certain
> > amount of karma. I just checked that stable packages may still re
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 03:46:39PM -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Till Maas (opensou...@till.name) said:
> > I just have another idea: Add the karma value to the repository
> > metadata and write a yum plugin to only install packages with a certain
> > amount of karma. I just checked that stable
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 9:43 PM, Till Maas wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 01:16:43PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>
>> I would like to collect feedback on this issue. If you want to disable
>> direct stable pushes, why? Could there be a less radical solution to that
>> problem (e.g. a policy disco
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 11:27:45AM -0600, Mike McGrath wrote:
> Though, in theory, fewer updates means a higher percentage of them can be
> tested which means quality goes up.
This does not take testing & bugfixing at upstream and other
distributions into account. And I am pretty sure, that there
Till Maas (opensou...@till.name) said:
> I just have another idea: Add the karma value to the repository
> metadata and write a yum plugin to only install packages with a certain
> amount of karma. I just checked that stable packages may still receive
> karma, so then everyone can pre-select packa
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 01:16:43PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> I would like to collect feedback on this issue. If you want to disable
> direct stable pushes, why? Could there be a less radical solution to that
> problem (e.g. a policy discouraging direct stable pushes for some specific
> types
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 11:36:41AM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 20:26 +0100, Till Maas wrote:
> > First”) include
> > "first.
>
> I take this to mean the first to include something in a release, as we
> develop it, not the first one to throw it over the wall at our users of
Jesse Keating (jkeat...@redhat.com) said:
> On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 12:18 -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> >
> > Mainly, it removes the repository definitions in rawhide that don't make
> > sense - the release, updates, updates-testing, etc. repos won't work anyway
> > unless you change $releasever
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 07:56:02PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 08:41:07PM +0100, Till Maas wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 07:18:58PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > > On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 08:15:43PM +0100, Till Maas wrote:
> > >
> > > > 1) to fix a bug or add a
On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 14:54:29 -0500 (EST)
Paul Wouters wrote:
...snip...
> A quicker way of seeing if a bug report was alread made, and more
> quickly being able to report bugs then spending 15-30 with bugzilla
> would help me in reporting more bugs. I like the automated crash
> reporting, though
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 7:49 PM, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 12:34 PM, drago01 wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 6:27 PM, Mike McGrath wrote:
>>> [...]
>>> Though, in theory, fewer updates means a higher percentage of them can be
>>> tested which means quality goes up.
>>
>> Ev
Hi,
> at the FESCo meeting on Tuesday, everyone except me seemed to be set on
> wanting to disable the possibility to queue updates directly to stable in
> Bodhi. The only reason this was not decided right there (with no outside
> feedback) is that Matthew Garrett (mjg59) wants to write down a p
On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 19:18:58 +, Matthew wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 08:15:43PM +0100, Till Maas wrote:
>
> > 1) to fix a bug or add a feature the maintainer experienced/uses
>
> If nobody is complaining about the bug, then fixing the bug can wait
> until the next Fedora release.
Brill
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 08:41:07PM +0100, Till Maas wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 07:18:58PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 08:15:43PM +0100, Till Maas wrote:
> >
> > > 1) to fix a bug or add a feature the maintainer experienced/uses
> >
> > If nobody is complaining
On Fri, 26 Feb 2010, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 08:15:43PM +0100, Till Maas wrote:
>
>> 1) to fix a bug or add a feature the maintainer experienced/uses
>
> If nobody is complaining about the bug, then fixing the bug can wait
> until the next Fedora release.
Do you have the
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 07:18:58PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 08:15:43PM +0100, Till Maas wrote:
>
> > 1) to fix a bug or add a feature the maintainer experienced/uses
>
> If nobody is complaining about the bug, then fixing the bug can wait
> until the next Fedora re
On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 20:26 +0100, Till Maas wrote:
> First”) include
> "first.
I take this to mean the first to include something in a release, as we
develop it, not the first one to throw it over the wall at our users of
a stable Fedora release.
--
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- Freedom² is a featur
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 2:16 PM, Richard Zidlicky wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 01:49:00PM -0500, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 12:34 PM, drago01 wrote:
>> > On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 6:27 PM, Mike McGrath wrote:
>> >> [...]
>> >> Though, in theory, fewer updates means a higher
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 08:16:18PM +0100, Richard Zidlicky wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 01:49:00PM -0500, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 12:34 PM, drago01 wrote:
> > > On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 6:27 PM, Mike McGrath wrote:
> > >> [...]
> > >> Though, in theory, fewer updates me
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=460168
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=396645&action=diff
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=396645&action=edit
--
389-devel mailing list
389-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-dev
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 08:15:43PM +0100, Till Maas wrote:
> 1) to fix a bug or add a feature the maintainer experienced/uses
If nobody is complaining about the bug, then fixing the bug can wait
until the next Fedora release.
> 2) As already told several times, not having people to test somethi
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 06:58:28PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 07:42:16PM +0100, Patrice Dumas wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 05:07:24PM +, Jesse Keating wrote:
> > >
> > > It'll require some enhancements to how bodhi is used for people
> > > consuming testing u
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 01:49:00PM -0500, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 12:34 PM, drago01 wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 6:27 PM, Mike McGrath wrote:
> >> [...]
> >> Though, in theory, fewer updates means a higher percentage of them can be
> >> tested which means quality goes
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 12:14:41PM -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> >
> > Bringinig down productivity of good packagers for a few bad ones, is,
> > in my opinion, not a good move.
>
> Fedora doesn't exist for the productivity of packagers. It exists for
> the productivity of our users.
Both are
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=460162
patches for directory server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=396621&action=diff
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=396621&action=edit
patches for admin server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=396634&action=di
1 - 100 of 231 matches
Mail list logo
