-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08/14/2010 08:50 PM, inode0 wrote:
> On Saturday, August 14, 2010, Jesse Keating wrote:
>> I'm still looking for an android email client that allows me to place
>> the reply below the quoted text. I guess an alternative is to delete
>> the entire
On Saturday, August 14, 2010, Jesse Keating wrote:
> I'm still looking for an android email client that allows me to place
> the reply below the quoted text. I guess an alternative is to delete
> the entire quoted text...
While not very convenient the web browser let's you do whatever you please
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08/14/2010 05:27 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Sven Lankes wrote:
>> I would like to add something similar to the following to the "If You
>> Are Replying to a Message" part in the wiki:
>>
>> The fact that you're sending the email from a smartphone
On Thu, 2010-08-12 at 23:29 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On 08/12/2010 10:59 PM, Matt McCutchen wrote:
> > That's why I'm so frustrated that Fedora seems to be committed
> > to keeping the Mozilla trademarks, which moot any discussion of whether
> > to deviate for those packages. But this is onl
On Fri, 2010-08-13 at 22:59 +0200, Julian Sikorski wrote:
> Is the karma getting reset upon an edit?
I don't have an answer to the question, but FYI, there is an open ticket
about it:
https://fedorahosted.org/bodhi/ticket/388
--
Matt
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https:/
My view - view mailing list as software - be tolerant what you accept
as input from others, and make your output conform to sensible standards.
Lead by example .. may the best example win.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/de
On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 00:32:46 +0200,
Sven Lankes wrote:
>
> Smartphones seem to be changing this and the number of full-quote,
> top-post emails is increasing steadily.
I prefer that if it's too hard to intersperse text, that all of the old
message be removed.
The signatures that are prima
Sven Lankes wrote:
> I would like to add something similar to the following to the "If You
> Are Replying to a Message" part in the wiki:
>
> The fact that you're sending the email from a smartphone or similar
> device doesn't invalidate those guidelines. Please consider sending
> the
On Sun, 2010-08-15 at 00:32 +0200, Sven Lankes wrote:
> Hi,
>
> despite the occasional flamewar and useless argumentation the fedora-
> mailinglist (and especially the high-traffic 'devel' list) I find that
> the mailinglist is one of the more pleasant FLOSS related mailinglist to
> read.
Well, a
Hi,
despite the occasional flamewar and useless argumentation the fedora-
mailinglist (and especially the high-traffic 'devel' list) I find that
the mailinglist is one of the more pleasant FLOSS related mailinglist to
read. This probably because of the fact that there are guidelines and
that peopl
On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 4:08 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-08-14 at 19:44 +0200, Martin Sourada wrote:
>
>> The only thing I don't understand completely (but can accept without
>> complaining nevertheless) is why this applies to *new* packages as well
>> -- they didn't existed in repos
On Sat, 2010-08-14 at 19:44 +0200, Martin Sourada wrote:
> The only thing I don't understand completely (but can accept without
> complaining nevertheless) is why this applies to *new* packages as well
> -- they didn't existed in repos before and anything is better than
> nothing...
Same objectio
On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 8:05 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Martin Sourada wrote:
>> I still remember the epic fail of having KDE 4.0 in stable fedora
>
> * I still think the KDE 4.0.3 we shipped in F9 wasn't that bad. We fixed all
> the showstoppers before F9 was released, and were also quick to ship
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 02:20:51PM -0400, David Malcolm wrote:
> (Sorry about the length of this email)
>
> Python 2.7 deprecated the PyCObject API in favor of a new "capsule" API.
> http://docs.python.org/dev/whatsnew/2.7.html#capsules
> (b) try to fix the ones that are self-contained; send f
New packages can break existing systems. Leak ram, eat filesystems, leak
personal data, leak root, dos a system, etc...
--
Sent from my Android phone. Please excuse my brevity, lack of trimming, and top
posting.
"Martin Sourada" wrote:
>On Sat, 2010-08-14 at 19:14 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
On Sat, 2010-08-14 at 19:05 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Martin Sourada wrote:
> > I still remember the epic fail of having KDE 4.0 in stable fedora
>
> * I still think the KDE 4.0.3 we shipped in F9 wasn't that bad. We fixed all
> the showstoppers before F9 was released, and were also quick to
On Sat, 2010-08-14 at 19:14 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Martin Sourada wrote:
> > Seeing your mail, you more or less agree with this. So why exactly are
> > you against the policy explicitly requiring either positive karma or
> > some minimal time in testing (setting aside some current shrotcommi
On 08/14/2010 07:17 AM, Till Maas wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 07:07:44PM -0400, Luke Macken wrote:
>
>> I just pushed out a fix that should allow you to edit updates with your
>> local development instance.
>
> Thank you very much, it works. Patches for the autokarma javascript will
> soon be
Martin Sourada wrote:
> Seeing your mail, you more or less agree with this. So why exactly are
> you against the policy explicitly requiring either positive karma or
> some minimal time in testing (setting aside some current shrotcommings
> of the implementation like resetting the timer on bug upda
Martin Sourada wrote:
> I still remember the epic fail of having KDE 4.0 in stable fedora
* I still think the KDE 4.0.3 we shipped in F9 wasn't that bad. We fixed all
the showstoppers before F9 was released, and were also quick to ship updates
fixing more annoyances, including updates to later 4
Compose started at Sat Aug 14 13:15:25 UTC 2010
Broken deps for x86_64
--
CGAL-3.6.1-1.fc14.i686 requires libboost_thread-mt.so.1.41.0
CGAL-3.6.1-1.fc14.x86_64 requires libboost_thread-mt.so.1.41.0()(64bit)
LuxRender-0
On 08/14/2010 02:19 PM, pbrobin...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 9:19 PM, Matthias Runge
> wrote:
>> Hello all,
>>
>> currently I'm looking for a review for two of my packages:
>> lockfile-progs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=601115
>> is a dependency of
>> logcheck: ht
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 9:19 PM, Matthias Runge
wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> currently I'm looking for a review for two of my packages:
> lockfile-progs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=601115
> is a dependency of
> logcheck: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=589867
>
> liblockfil
Compose started at Sat Aug 14 08:15:16 UTC 2010
Broken deps for x86_64
--
Mayavi-3.3.0-1.fc13.x86_64 requires python(abi) = 0:2.6
Mayavi-3.3.0-1.fc13.x86_64 requires libpython2.6.so.1.0()(64bit)
PragmARC-20060427-6.fc1
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 07:07:44PM -0400, Luke Macken wrote:
> I just pushed out a fix that should allow you to edit updates with your
> local development instance.
Thank you very much, it works. Patches for the autokarma javascript will
soon be attached to bodhi's trac. With these, there is onl
On Sat, 2010-08-14 at 10:32 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Martin Sourada wrote:
> > There are also bazillion distributions out there who are on the bleeding
> > edge.
>
> But none that have the current stuff without blatant breakage as updates to
> the stable releases, and ship the exciting but di
On Sat, 2010-08-14 at 11:07 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> David Malcolm wrote:
> > I think that a distinction can be made between core packages that many
> > different components depend upon versus "leaf" packages that do their
> > own thing and no other component relies on. I do think we should be
On Sat, 14 Aug 2010 11:33:02 +0200, Kevin wrote:
> > I've always warned about mass-pushing updates to multiple dists,
> > and I'm glad I'm not the only one.
>
> EPEL is an entirely different matter, since:
> * there are literally YEARS between the RHEL releases and
> * RHEL has a very conservativ
W dniu 14.08.2010 00:12, Kevin Fenzi pisze:
> On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 23:17:39 +0200
> Sven Lankes wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 07:21:50PM +0200, Martin Sourada wrote:
>>
>>> I wonder why I get the impression that the only ones who strongly
>>> oppose this change are you folks from KDE SIG...
W dniu 14.08.2010 11:08, Kevin Kofler pisze:
> Adam Williamson wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 2010-08-13 at 17:54 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>>> in the past due to regressions which are already fixed in the current
>>> edited version. (Yes, update groups will be edited instead of obsoleted
>>> if we
>>
>> Pl
Michael Schwendt wrote:
> +1, +10, +1000 … happens with Fedora and also with Fedora EPEL.
> I've always warned about mass-pushing updates to multiple dists,
> and I'm glad I'm not the only one.
EPEL is an entirely different matter, since:
* there are literally YEARS between the RHEL releases and
*
I wrote:
> The election process, on the other hand, is working very badly: only a
> small portion of the eligible voters actually casts a vote (and even for
> those, there are no stats on how many cast all-0 votes), and several
> people who did vote expressed unhappiness about the available candida
On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 12:12:47 -0400, seth wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-08-13 at 18:07 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > Al Dunsmuir wrote:
> > > You are assuming that it is somehow a good idea to push release Fn, in
> > > spite of no (or negative) testing.
> >
> > Yes I am! If I build the EXACT SAME specfil
Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> This already sounds like something that is too involved for maintainers
> and package reviewers to do. I think this might be something that doesn't
> leave the drawing board without tooling to at least do part of the
> detective work.
Well, people, as opposed to automated
Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-08-13 at 17:54 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> in the past due to regressions which are already fixed in the current
>> edited version. (Yes, update groups will be edited instead of obsoleted
>> if we
>
> Please stop mixing minor bugs in the process in with hig
David Malcolm wrote:
> I think that a distinction can be made between core packages that many
> different components depend upon versus "leaf" packages that do their
> own thing and no other component relies on. I do think we should be
> conservative when updating core components in released versi
Sven Lankes wrote:
> I for one have decided that I'm going to stop contributing if the
> 'Stable Update Vision' is going to be implemented as currently
> discussed. If the powers that be are going to stop maintainers from
> issuing updates that are not security or bugfix updates then fedora will
>
Martin Sourada wrote:
> There are also bazillion distributions out there who are on the bleeding
> edge.
But none that have the current stuff without blatant breakage as updates to
the stable releases, and ship the exciting but disruptive changes in new
releases every 6 months, while still suppo
Adam Williamson wrote:
> How do we decide which SIGs trump which other SIGs if they disagree?
An arbitration committee can decide in what SIG's area the decision falls.
But they should NOT decide the issue (they should ignore entirely, or
ideally not even know, which SIG holds what position), ju
39 matches
Mail list logo
