Till Maas wrote:
>
>> A less ugly script can now be found here:
>> http://till.fedorapeople.org/tmp/easy-karma.py
>> Improvements:
>> - display update details, e.g. bugs and notes
>> - use src.rpm to find matching update
>> - skip updates that have already been commented
>>
>> With this giving
On Thu, 04 Mar 2010 03:32:13 +0100
Till Maas wrote:
> A less ugly script can now be found here:
> http://till.fedorapeople.org/tmp/easy-karma.py
> Improvements:
> - display update details, e.g. bugs and notes
> - use src.rpm to find matching update
> - skip updates that have already been commente
On Thu, 2010-03-04 at 03:32 +0100, Till Maas wrote:
> A less ugly script can now be found here:
> http://till.fedorapeople.org/tmp/easy-karma.py
> Improvements:
> - display update details, e.g. bugs and notes
> - use src.rpm to find matching update
> - skip updates that have already been commented
On Thu, 2010-03-04 at 03:32 +0100, Till Maas wrote:
> A less ugly script can now be found here:
> http://till.fedorapeople.org/tmp/easy-karma.py
> Improvements:
> - display update details, e.g. bugs and notes
> - use src.rpm to find matching update
> - skip updates that have already been commented
It has been almost a year since we announced changes to the Packaging
Guidelines, so this will be a long list. In the future, we'll try to be
more timely in writing up changes and announcing them to the Fedora
Community.
Here are the list of changes to the Fedora Packaging Guidelines:
When select
On Thu, Mar 04, 2010 at 12:55:46AM +0100, Till Maas wrote:
> So here is a first ugly script to easily give feedback for all installed
> testing updates that were created after a certain date (I did not find
> an easy way to get all testing updates, one did not yet comment on):
> http://till.fedora
Dear Fedora package maintainers
This is kind reminder asking you to rebuild your package with latest
translation. Localization team has been translating for updated and/or
newly added strings since the String is frozen (2010-02-09). To allow
translators to review and correct their latest transl
Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Kevin Kofler said:
>> Such as? We're filling a niche, this is one of our unique selling points,
>> you want to throw out the baby with the bathwater!
>
> Who is this "we" you keep speaking of? When did huge dumps of updates
> in supposedly stable releases be
James Antill wrote:
> I think I'm starting to see a pattern here:
>
> . Kevin doesn't use DVD updates, so anything that needlessly breaks DVD
> updates is fine because DVD updates are worthless.
DVD updates are by definition broken, unless you have never run updates
on your previous system.
>
Greetings,
Representatives from Fedora QA, Rel-Eng and Development met on IRC to
review determine whether the Fedora 13 Alpha release criteria [1] have
been met. The team agreed that the Alpha criteria have been met, and to
proceed with releasing F-13-Alpha-RC4. For additional details, please
re
On Thu, 2010-03-04 at 00:55 +0100, Till Maas wrote:
> > So - for the third time - a package being in updates-testing for a few
> > days and getting no negative feedback is a moderate strength indicator
> > that it's not egregiously broken. Not a super-strong indicator, but
> > better than a kick i
On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 02:06:33PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 17:04 +0100, Till Maas wrote:
>
> > I mind have misunderstood it, but afaics it only says that it will be
> > tested, because it spent time in updates-testing, but this is not even
> > true nowadays, even if p
On 03/03/2010 06:14 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Release_Lifecycle_Proposals
>
> Several people have made proposals which are listed here. I know of several
> others (for instance, jresnik's proposal for different F-Current and
> F-Current-1 update styles) and your
On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 04:44:55PM -0500, Doug Ledford wrote:
> On 03/03/2010 04:40 PM, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
> > On 03/03/2010 04:30 PM, Doug Ledford wrote:
> >> So while I agree that some of the posts where people are simply
> >> attacking other people need to stop, I can't agree that this t
On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Adam Williamson wrote:
>
> I think it's ultimately a Board decision whether we pick one of the two
> target groups and stick to it, or whether we try to cater to both. That
> decision should basically make it obvious what we should do with our
> update streams.
It's a fesco
On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 19:05 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> This guideline MUST be followed.
ah, the joys of the oxymoron!
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedor
On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 17:53 -0500, Matthias Clasen wrote:
> If your fonts look subtly different tomorrow, this is why...
Thanks for the heads up!
--
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature!
identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message
Hey,
early in the F13 cycle, we enabled the bytecode interpreter in our
freetype package, since the patents on that have expired last fall.
Unfortunately, it turned out that many free fonts don't actually benefit
from this, and actually look worse with the bci. The reason for that is
that without
On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 16:40 -0500, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
> On 03/03/2010 04:30 PM, Doug Ledford wrote:
> > So while I agree that some of the posts where people are simply
> > attacking other people need to stop, I can't agree that this thread has
> > reached a stage where it is advisable to st
On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 14:27 -0500, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
> Okay. This has gone on long enough. The signal is gone from the
> following threads:
>
> * FESCo wants to ban direct stable pushes in Bodhi (urgent call forfeedback)
> * Worthless updates
> * Refining the update queues/process
>
> Ac
On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 13:49 -0600, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> Just because KDE 4.2 and Qt 4.5 are "buggy" shouldn't have given 4.4/4.6
> a free ride into stable. Backporting bugs is part of any Fedora package.
> Now that you got your way, this is deteriorating into a shift by you to
> move Fe
On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 14:14 -0500, Peter Jones wrote:
> On 03/03/2010 01:17 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > Mathieu Bridon wrote:
> >> In the end, I think the question is not about giving users what users
> >> want (be it frequent updates or stalled releases), but giving users
> >> what we see as a bet
On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 08:57 -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
> Neither OpenSUSE nor Ubuntu are as quick to pick up new technologies and
> run with them into a stable release. Quite often they pick things
> up /after/ Fedora has done a release with them and worked through all
> the hard problems. They
On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 17:37 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Till Maas wrote:
> > How about we keep updates and updates-testing more like they are and add
> > another repo like updates-stable that follows your policy and is the
> > only updates repo enabled by default.
>
> That's essentially what Adam
On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 09:27:47PM +0100, drago01 wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 9:20 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > Increasingly a number of broadband connections require usb_modeswitch to
> > connect online
> >
> > http://who-t.blogspot.com/2010/03/vodafone-australia-mobile-broadband-
On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 17:04 +0100, Till Maas wrote:
> I mind have misunderstood it, but afaics it only says that it will be
> tested, because it spent time in updates-testing, but this is not even
> true nowadays, even if packages stay long in updates-testing.
as we've explained several times, mo
On 03/03/2010 04:44 PM, Doug Ledford wrote:
> Well, I *did* make a barebones proposal towards the third option in the
> thread in question, and I intended to work some more on it (in a
> constructive manner). But, I can put it in a new thread if you like.
Please do so, it will hopefully focus the
On 03/03/2010 04:40 PM, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
> On 03/03/2010 04:30 PM, Doug Ledford wrote:
>> So while I agree that some of the posts where people are simply
>> attacking other people need to stop, I can't agree that this thread has
>> reached a stage where it is advisable to stop constructiv
On 03/03/2010 02:36 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
>> It is a reason but it's not the only reason. Semi-rolling releases allow
>> a subset of the entire packager community to work on an update as a set
>> and then push them when they're known to work together. Currently rawhide
>
On 03/03/2010 04:30 PM, Doug Ledford wrote:
> So while I agree that some of the posts where people are simply
> attacking other people need to stop, I can't agree that this thread has
> reached a stage where it is advisable to stop constructive discussions.
> I would argue that it's necessary to c
On Wed, 03 Mar 2010 22:39:44 +0100
nodata wrote:
> What is hall monitored?
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Hall_Monitor_Policy
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Enrico Scholz wrote:
>> Upstream reports a logging bug.
>
> ??? You and Noa Resare were the only one who reported the non-logging as
> a bug and some posts ago you said that you are not upstream. So, why do
> you think that upstream reported a logging bug?
I pointed you to ht
On 03/03/10 20:27, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
> Okay. This has gone on long enough. The signal is gone from the
> following threads:
>
> * FESCo wants to ban direct stable pushes in Bodhi (urgent call forfeedback)
> * Worthless updates
> * Refining the update queues/process
>
> Accordingly, I'm mar
On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 03:03 -0500, Jon Masters wrote:
> This isn't $Enterprise_Linux, it doesn't come with a guarantee and does
> expect to be a moving target, but that doesn't mean there can't be a
> predictable update cycle and a reasonable expectation that updates are
> necessary and won't brea
On 03/03/2010 02:27 PM, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
> Okay. This has gone on long enough. The signal is gone from the
> following threads:
The signal is not entirely gone, although it is getting weaker.
> * FESCo wants to ban direct stable pushes in Bodhi (urgent call forfeedback)
> * Worthless up
On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 20:33 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Peter Jones wrote:
>
> > On 03/03/2010 01:17 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> >> Mathieu Bridon wrote:
> >>> In the end, I think the question is not about giving users what users
> >>> want (be it frequent updates or stalled releases), but giving u
On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 19:43 +0100, Thomas Janssen wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 7:01 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> > Thomas Janssen (thom...@fedoraproject.org) said:
> >> As i said before. Nobody holds a gun on my head and tells me "you have
> >> to update that packages". If you dont want it, rea
Greetings,
The scheduled March 4 test day, with a focus on SSSDbyDefault [1], has
been postponed for a later date. Several planned changes to simplify
the user interface of authconfig-gtk were not completed in time for the
test day. The event will be reschedule for a later date.
Apologies for
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 9:20 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> Hi
>
> Increasingly a number of broadband connections require usb_modeswitch to
> connect online
>
> http://who-t.blogspot.com/2010/03/vodafone-australia-mobile-broadband-and.html
>
> Any opposition to adding this to the base group?
Well we
Hi
Increasingly a number of broadband connections require usb_modeswitch to
connect online
http://who-t.blogspot.com/2010/03/vodafone-australia-mobile-broadband-and.html
Any opposition to adding this to the base group?
Rahul
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fed
On 03/04/2010 01:42 AM, Enrico Scholz wrote:
>
> its a bug in redhat-lsb (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=522053),
> not tor
>
Why do you have a dependency on redhat-lsb ?
Rahul
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/de
Paul Wouters writes:
> Upstream reports a logging bug.
??? You and Noa Resare were the only one who reported the non-logging as
a bug and some posts ago you said that you are not upstream. So, why do
you think that upstream reported a logging bug?
> WONTFIX; The alternative would be so
Kevin Kofler wrote:
> If they want me to debug their issues, sure. Selective updates are not
> supportable. They shouldn't be necessary anyway, as our updates, even
> version upgrades, are supposed to Just Work. Excluding something is just a
> workaround for some bug, and not upgrading most stuff i
On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> The strong argument is that KDE and Fedora release cycles are not in sync
> and our users would thus have to wait months for the new KDE.
As many have stated, not all people *want* those feature updates
to stable release. By pushing them by force, you r
On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 02:26:19PM -0500, Paul Wouters wrote:
> Upstream reports a logging bug. You claim to know better and WONTFIX
> because obviously you have more experience in the legalities of running
> tor nodes and the police then upstream does..
What is the big problem with the disab
Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> It is a reason but it's not the only reason. Semi-rolling releases allow
> a subset of the entire packager community to work on an update as a set
> and then push them when they're known to work together. Currently rawhide
> is not so coherent.
>
> We could change rawhide
On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 14:24 -0500, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> We could change rawhide from a pure rolling to a semi-rolling model but then
> would we need to have a rawerhide?
Quite likely yes.
--
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature!
identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating
signature.asc
Peter Jones wrote:
> On 03/03/2010 01:17 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> Mathieu Bridon wrote:
>>> In the end, I think the question is not about giving users what users
>>> want (be it frequent updates or stalled releases), but giving users
>>> what we see as a better deal for them.
>>
>> I think want
On 03/02/2010 06:58 AM, Pierre-Yves wrote:
> I believe R-nws is also wrong, but the page on the cran is not been
> updated since 1.7.0.0.
Well, its an odd situation. There is a newer R-nws, but it depends on
code that Revolution Computing didn't ever properly release. Ubuntu has
copies of the deps
On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 08:08:22PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Till Maas wrote:
> > Bug avoiding regressions at all costs is what some are willing to take.
> > With the repo split there can be at least better co-operation as e.g.
> > splitting the distribution. At least for me as a FOSS believer g
On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Chris Adams wrote:
> By the same token, if you want rolling update releases, feel free to do
> it in your own private repo. See how well that argument works?
No i don't. I'm using a mainstream distribution and thus I expect to
get them. Just like the upstream has intended t
Mike McGrath wrote:
> Their release cycles, on release day, are already older then our releases.
> That's the unique role we fill. Well we used to. Now we don't fill any
> particular role at all.
Wrong, we fill the role of providing version upgrades in stable releases.
This also has the side be
Okay. This has gone on long enough. The signal is gone from the
following threads:
* FESCo wants to ban direct stable pushes in Bodhi (urgent call forfeedback)
* Worthless updates
* Refining the update queues/process
Accordingly, I'm marking those threads as Hall-Monitored. Please stop
posting in
On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 08:04:21PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Till Maas wrote:
> > As far as I understood, there is no need to backport security fixes. One
> > could just copy the package with the security fix with all needed
> > dependencies to the stable repo imho.
>
> I think people are going
On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Enrico Scholz wrote:
The tor upstream has filed that as bug report as well.
>>>
>>> ... and understand my reasons not to activate logging
>>
>> That is not true. It just decided not to pick a fight over that while
>> more pressing bugs required you to fix them.
>
> ok; sor
Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Kevin Kofler said:
>> Usually, the first question I ask is "Do you have all updates installed?"
>> If the answer is no, I ask them to install the updates and won't answer
>> any question until they do. I'm not going to waste my time trying to
>> debug alread
On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 11:58:23AM -0600, Matt Domsch wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 08:16:05AM -0600, Chris Adams wrote:
> > > On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 9:03 AM, Jon Masters
> > > wrote:
> > > > My own personal opinion is that stable updates should only fix serious
> > > > issues, or security pro
Juha Tuomala wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>>> You're distorting the Fedora model to accommodate KDE roadmaps.
>>
>> No, this goes far beyond KDE. KDE roadmaps are just one strong argument
>> for doing things this way. Many more packages benefit or would benefit
>> from version u
On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 11:07:27AM -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Till Maas wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 08:42:57AM -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Till Maas wrote:
> >
> >>> Are there even any metrics about how many bad updates happened? For me
Matt Domsch wrote:
> The _only_ reason to name something with a 'version' or a 'release' is
> to provide a set point for consistency, either in people's minds
> (marketing), or to provide a technical baseline for interoperability.
> If we continue to take the technical baselines, and move them ad-h
On 03/03/2010 01:17 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Mathieu Bridon wrote:
>> In the end, I think the question is not about giving users what users
>> want (be it frequent updates or stalled releases), but giving users
>> what we see as a better deal for them.
>
> I think wanting to decide for your users
Till Maas wrote:
> Bug avoiding regressions at all costs is what some are willing to take.
> With the repo split there can be at least better co-operation as e.g.
> splitting the distribution. At least for me as a FOSS believer getting
> upstream bugfixes fast (especially if I submitted them upstre
On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 10:19:43 -0800,
Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 11:58 -0600, Matt Domsch wrote:
> >
> > I added a proposal to this page to codify my thoughts.
> >
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Release_Lifecycle_Proposals
> >
>
> I do like this proposal, and I like w
Till Maas wrote:
> As far as I understood, there is no need to backport security fixes. One
> could just copy the package with the security fix with all needed
> dependencies to the stable repo imho.
I think people are going to visit me at home and do really scary things to
me if I push a "securi
On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 01:00:54PM -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Jaroslav Reznik (jrez...@redhat.com) said:
> > It's quite similar to our KDE stability proposal [1] - (from F13 released
> > POV)
> > F11 eol, F12 stable with security and bugfix updates and F13 current
> > version
> > with lat
Once upon a time, Kevin Kofler said:
> Usually, the first question I ask is "Do you have all updates installed?" If
> the answer is no, I ask them to install the updates and won't answer any
> question until they do. I'm not going to waste my time trying to debug
> already fixed problems in old
Once upon a time, Kevin Kofler said:
> Don't give up the fight yet!
>
> I also see that things are not looking good, but we need to fight this to
> the bitter end, or we'll forever feel guilty about having done nothing to
> try to prevent Fedora from getting ruined.
With that mindset, nothing
Once upon a time, Juha Tuomala said:
> For note, I'm among those who don't want feature upgrades into
> stable fedora release. If you're so happy to chase latest and
> gratest, feel free to do it in your sf.net private repo.
By the same token, if you want rolling update releases, feel free to do
Emmanuel Seyman wrote:
> * Thomas Janssen [03/03/2010 17:41] :
>>
>> Really? And that shows me the QT version now? I must miss something.
>
> "If they ask about F12 KDE, who knows."
Usually, the first question I ask is "Do you have all updates installed?" If
the answer is no, I ask them to inst
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 7:49 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Thomas Janssen (thom...@fedoraproject.org) said:
>> > When there's no policy, and the user has to guess whether or not they
>> > need to do this for every package on their system, however, you have
>> > a mess.
>>
>> Well, except there's not
Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Jaroslav Reznik (jrez...@redhat.com) said:
>> It's quite similar to our KDE stability proposal [1] - (from F13 released
>> POV) F11 eol, F12 stable with security and bugfix updates and F13 current
>> version with latest but stable software. You can't force users to use F14
On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> You're distorting the Fedora model to accommodate KDE roadmaps.
>
> No, this goes far beyond KDE. KDE roadmaps are just one strong argument for
> doing things this way. Many more packages benefit or would benefit from
> version upgrades during a releas
Bill Nottingham wrote:
> When there's no policy, and the user has to guess whether or not they
> need to do this for every package on their system, however, you have
> a mess.
The idea is that our updates, even version upgrades, Just Work. We don't and
shouldn't push stuff which is known to regre
Thomas Janssen (thom...@fedoraproject.org) said:
> > When there's no policy, and the user has to guess whether or not they
> > need to do this for every package on their system, however, you have
> > a mess.
>
> Well, except there's nothing to guess. The regular user should by all
> means know wh
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 7:40 PM, Mike McGrath wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Thomas Janssen wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 7:34 PM, Mike McGrath wrote:
>> > On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> >
>> >> Jesse Keating wrote:
>> >> > We could very well fill that gap with rapid release cycles
On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 19:14:09 +0100,
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> Seth doesn't fix bugs even when they are apparent and when there is no
> risk at all.
yum is a very critical package. Even if the chance of an undetected regression
is low, the consequences of pushing an update with one can be pre
Mathieu Bridon wrote:
> In the end, I think the question is not about giving users what users
> want (be it frequent updates or stalled releases), but giving users
> what we see as a better deal for them.
I think wanting to decide for your users is a really arrogant attitude. The
user should be t
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 7:01 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Thomas Janssen (thom...@fedoraproject.org) said:
>> As i said before. Nobody holds a gun on my head and tells me "you have
>> to update that packages". If you dont want it, read the man yum and
>> exclude what you dont want. That's what i di
Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> This is only working for you because KDE is a high-visibility project
> and can mobilize resources even outside the distro normal schedule. The
> other packages you talk of could benefit if QA was cheap and plentiful
> but QA is not cheap and plentiful and pretending we do
On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Thomas Janssen wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 7:34 PM, Mike McGrath wrote:
> > On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> >
> >> Jesse Keating wrote:
> >> > We could very well fill that gap with rapid release cycles (every 6
> >> > months) and updates for those releases that f
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 7:34 PM, Mike McGrath wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>
>> Jesse Keating wrote:
>> > We could very well fill that gap with rapid release cycles (every 6
>> > months) and updates for those releases that focus on bugfix and
>> > security. That is a unique rol
James Antill wrote:
> As I would assume any programmer knows: Not all bugs are created equal.
> Trading "no regressions" for "some minor bugs still remain" is a trade
> lots of users are happy to make (see: every customer of every piece of
> commercial software, ever).
Those users can use one of
On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Jesse Keating wrote:
> > We could very well fill that gap with rapid release cycles (every 6
> > months) and updates for those releases that focus on bugfix and
> > security. That is a unique role that is not filled by any current Linux
> > OS.
>
> That s
Mathieu Bridon wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 18:27, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> We can't change Bodhi metadata after the fact at this time. Bodhi admins
>> might be able to do it, but maintainers definitely aren't.
>
> Where's the RFE ticket?
I've never felt the need. This is the first time somebo
Jesse Keating wrote:
> We could very well fill that gap with rapid release cycles (every 6
> months) and updates for those releases that focus on bugfix and
> security. That is a unique role that is not filled by any current Linux
> OS.
That sentence defines Ubuntu exactly. We're not the only one
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> Your testing group will *never* be able to test much more than a very
> tiny subset of use cases -- Let them test their limited testing
> scenarios, but keep them out of the rest of testing.
>
> => Instead of slowing down things by deploying a testing group, speed up
> thin
On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 11:58 -0600, Matt Domsch wrote:
>
> I added a proposal to this page to codify my thoughts.
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Release_Lifecycle_Proposals
>
I do like this proposal, and I like where you were going by defining why
it is we do releases, and what it means to r
Seth Vidal wrote:
> Those items will be released in the next release of yum or in the next
> fedora release.
That can be quite a long time. Providing bugfixes to our stable releases is
important! I won't complain if you do upstream releases regularly and
systematically push them as updates, but
On 03/03/2010 07:03 PM, James Antill wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 18:06 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>> On 03/03/2010 05:10 PM, Seth Vidal wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Peter Lemenkov wrote:
And what about tickets, closed with "FIXED UPSTREAM" w/o actually
applying fix to a pac
Compose started at Wed Mar 3 09:15:12 UTC 2010
Broken deps for i386
--
blahtexml-0.6-5.fc12.i686 requires libxerces-c.so.28
doodle-0.6.7-5.fc12.i686 requires libextractor.so.1
easystroke-0.5.2-1.fc13.i686 requires lib
Seth Vidal wrote:
> Having more time opens us up to more testing days and in the near future
> autoqa to help us bounce obviously bad things.
The whole point of AutoQA is that it can get (some) testing done fast
(otherwise why bother with automation?), I don't see why we need to slow
things down
Le mercredi 03 mars 2010 à 16:32 +0100, Kevin Kofler a écrit :
> Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> > If KDE wants to be on an equal footing with GNOME (another of your
> > repeated complains) it needs to learn synchronizing with distro releases
> > like GNOME (and kernel, and xorg did).
>
> I don't see th
Chen Lei wrote:
> Another question is why you use tor-lsb instead of normal initscript , a
> tor-sysvinit subpackage may be more suitable for fedora.
Right, but actually tor should simply include the normal SysV-style
initscripts (with initscripts dependencies, not lsb-core ones) inside the
pac
On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 18:06 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 03/03/2010 05:10 PM, Seth Vidal wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Peter Lemenkov wrote:
> >> And what about tickets, closed with "FIXED UPSTREAM" w/o actually
> >> applying fix to a package?
> >>
> >
> > Those items will be released
Thomas Janssen (thom...@fedoraproject.org) said:
> As i said before. Nobody holds a gun on my head and tells me "you have
> to update that packages". If you dont want it, read the man yum and
> exclude what you dont want. That's what i did in F-10.
When there's no policy, and the user has to gues
Jaroslav Reznik (jrez...@redhat.com) said:
> It's quite similar to our KDE stability proposal [1] - (from F13 released
> POV)
> F11 eol, F12 stable with security and bugfix updates and F13 current version
> with latest but stable software. You can't force users to use F14 (aka
> rawhide) to be
James Antill wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 07:38 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> People who use updates-testing under the current system are signing up to
>> doing testing. Under your proposal, they'd be forced to sign up to get
>> any current updates.
>
> Get current updates => so they can be te
On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 08:16:05AM -0600, Chris Adams wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 9:03 AM, Jon Masters wrote:
> > > My own personal opinion is that stable updates should only fix serious
> > > issues, or security problems. Fedora has such a short lifetime as it is,
> > > I really can't see t
Adam Williamson (awill...@redhat.com) said:
> On Tue, 2010-03-02 at 17:52 -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
> > On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 02:33 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > > But the problem is what to do if the testing ALREADY failed. Then the
> > > best
> > > strategy is to fix the problem ASAP, bypas
On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 11:48:18AM -0500, James Antill wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 17:09 +0100, Till Maas wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 11:02:51AM -0500, James Antill wrote:
> > > If we had less updates, that changed less things and required more
> > > testing before pushing them to users
1 - 100 of 202 matches
Mail list logo
