On Sat, 2012-01-14 at 18:59 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
> Am 14.01.2012 18:26, schrieb Rahul Sundaram:
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 6:03 AM, Reindl Harald
> >
> > Am 14.01.2012 01:17, schrieb Sérgio Basto:
> > > On Sat, 2012-01-14 at 00:32 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
> >
* Kevin Kofler [14/01/2012 22:06] :
>
> That's exactly why we need proper support for group ownership in pkgdb.
I believe that this isn't going to happen unless the people who want it
actually submit patches for pkgdb to implement it. Should it be none the less
implemented by other people, there's
Le 14/01/2012 22:23, Thomas Moschny a écrit :
> Hi Haïkel,
>
> I am comaintaining lxc for a while and was already working on an
> update to 0.7.5 (but got distracted somehow...).
>
> Regards,
> Thomas
Since 0.7.5 has been released for few months, i assumed that nobody was
actually working on it. C
Hi Haïkel,
2012/1/14 Haïkel Guémar :
> thank you for having maintained it for some time. Since i still use it
> (at least as long as libvirt isn't able to generate LXC rootfs), i took
> ownership.
> As always, co-maintainers are welcome.
I am comaintaining lxc for a while and was already working
Le 14/01/2012 19:24, Adam Miller a écrit :
> Hello all,
> I am orphaning the lxc package as I no longer have a use for it
> because I've switched to the libvirt lxc driver so I have been rather
> neglectful of the lxc package.
>
> I'll release in pkgdb for anyone interested.
>
> Happy hacking,
On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 11:29 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
> well, attached are the one i am using with F15
> most of them written by myself or derived
> from F16/F17 packages
>
You have to seperate them out and file them in bugzilla if you want them to
reach the maintainers. Very few people are g
Greetings from FUDCon, in Blacksburg, VA.
I know that only a handful of people might recognize me on devel@, but
something that's been rolling around in my head for a little while is to
start a Multimedia SIG in fedora.
I know there exists the audio and music SIGs, but they focus more towards
pro
Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> Thats your preference. Some people would be better off with another
> supported package that does something similar, or even a package from
> an upstream thats more up to date or functional.
That assumes such a package exists. I have no problems with packages getting
retired
Am 14.01.2012 19:12, schrieb Kevin Kofler:
> Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>> Keeping packages around with no maintainers or people handling their
>> bugs is poor for everyone.
>
> Why? If I, as a user, really need a certain piece of software, I'd rather
> have an unmaintained package than none at all!
b
On Sat, 14 Jan 2012 18:45:28 +0100, KK (Kevin) wrote:
> Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > Why must it be the opposite? Arbitrary access to packages, possibly
> > sporadic or random upgrades (as time permits), with no one taking care of
> > the packages normally.
>
> Because it's a much more effective u
On Sat, 14 Jan 2012 19:12:58 +0100
Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > Keeping packages around with no maintainers or people handling their
> > bugs is poor for everyone.
>
> Why? If I, as a user, really need a certain piece of software, I'd
> rather have an unmaintained package than no
Hello all,
I am orphaning the lxc package as I no longer have a use for it
because I've switched to the libvirt lxc driver so I have been rather
neglectful of the lxc package.
I'll release in pkgdb for anyone interested.
Happy hacking,
-AdamM
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.o
Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> Keeping packages around with no maintainers or people handling their
> bugs is poor for everyone.
Why? If I, as a user, really need a certain piece of software, I'd rather
have an unmaintained package than none at all! Worst case, I can't use the
package at all, in which cas
Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
> What I'm trying to say here is that there is a magic number ( it might
> be 8 it might be more but most likely it's less ) to how many packages
> single individual can properly and reliably maintain in the distribution.
>
> The rules become somewhat different with r
Am 14.01.2012 18:26, schrieb Rahul Sundaram:
>
>
> On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 6:03 AM, Reindl Harald
>
> Am 14.01.2012 01:17, schrieb Sérgio Basto:
> > On Sat, 2012-01-14 at 00:32 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
> >>
> >> what exactly is the problem to convert a existing
> >> sys
Michael Schwendt wrote:
> Why must it be the opposite? Arbitrary access to packages, possibly
> sporadic or random upgrades (as time permits), with no one taking care of
> the packages normally.
Because it's a much more effective use of our limited manpower. Everyone
does what they currently have
Michael Schwendt wrote:
> However, with the current features of pkgdb, each member of such a group
> would need to "subscribe to" the package in pkgdb. Not just for "commit"
> access, but also for someone to monitor bugzilla and the package-owner
> mail alias, which is convenient for team-work, too
On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 6:03 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>
> Am 14.01.2012 01:17, schrieb Sérgio Basto:
> > On Sat, 2012-01-14 at 00:32 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
> >>
> >> what exactly is the problem to convert a existing
> >> sysv-init script to a systemd-unit
> >
> > I don't know convert ? , to
2012/1/14 "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" :
> On 01/14/2012 12:10 PM, Iain Arnell wrote:
>>
>> Then you can't blindly work the averages and apply hard limits. Just
>> because some packages are high maintenance, doesn't mean that can't
>> cope with dozens of low maintenance packages.
>>
>
> That hard limit
...snip..
FWIW, I largely agree with Michael Schwendt here.
Keeping packages around with no maintainers or people handling their
bugs is poor for everyone.
kevin
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mai
On Sat, 14 Jan 2012 14:03:32 +
"Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> On 01/14/2012 12:10 PM, Iain Arnell wrote:
> > Then you can't blindly work the averages and apply hard limits. Just
> > because some packages are high maintenance, doesn't mean that can't
> > cope with dozens of low maintenance p
On 01/14/2012 12:10 PM, Iain Arnell wrote:
Then you can't blindly work the averages and apply hard limits. Just
because some packages are high maintenance, doesn't mean that can't
cope with dozens of low maintenance packages.
That hard limit is based on an guestimated time it takes to fix a si
2012/1/14 "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" :
> On 01/14/2012 10:44 AM, Iain Arnell wrote:
>>
>> You've got to be kidding. In a little over three years, I've picked up
>> more than 300 packages and only 81 bugs - most of which are from
>> upstream release monitoring. I've got no problem at all keeping up
>>
On Sat, 14 Jan 2012 09:12:06 +0100, KK (Kevin) wrote:
> > Even in the scenario of project-wide write-access to
> > packages, there must be someone to decide when to perform an upgrade.
>
> Not if we make it a project-wide policy to upgrade whenever there isn't a
> strong reason not to (as I've b
On 01/14/2012 10:44 AM, Iain Arnell wrote:
You've got to be kidding. In a little over three years, I've picked up
more than 300 packages and only 81 bugs - most of which are from
upstream release monitoring. I've got no problem at all keeping up
with the work.
Nope no kidding with my example ab
On Sat, 14 Jan 2012 06:10:48 +0100, RC (Ralf) wrote:
> > Even in the scenario of project-wide write-access to packages,
> > there must be someone to decide when to perform an upgrade.
>
> ... but this someone doesn't have to be an individual nor does it have
> to be the package maintainer. It can
2012/1/14 "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" :
[snip]
> Agreed with the added point that we also need to put limits on how many
> packages an single individual can own/maintain/co-maintain regardless of the
> nature of the package ( high maintenance/low maintenance).
>
> Finding that magic number should not p
On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 6:14 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 01/13/2012 10:10 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
>>
>> Sérgio Basto (ser...@serjux.com) said:
The script that generated this page can be found at
https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/browser/scripts/find-unblocked-orphans.py
>>
On 01/13/2012 09:51 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jan 2012 21:03:09 +0100, KK (Kevin) wrote:
When we're in danger of losing so many packages, it's a sign that our
processes are broken:
That's a dubious conclusion.
Agreed the current process only highlights the underlying cause.
The
Bruno Wolff III wrote on 2012-01-14:
> On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 03:54:08 +,
> "Wei, Gang" wrote:
>> If I pick up tboot package successfully asap, will it still be
>> possible to be kept
> in F-17?
>
> Another message had the date the packages needed to be picked up by.
> I think it was Febru
- Original Message -
> From: "Kevin Kofler"
> To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2012 10:12:06 AM
> Subject: Re: [ACTION REQUIRED] Retiring packages for F-17
>
> Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > Are you trying to say the Fedora Project has made it much too easy
>
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> Do you realize that such "demands for more people" often are symptoms of
> a failing system?
>
> The common alternatives are to "improve efficency" and to "improve
> productivity" using those resources you have available. Approaches into
> this direction would be "teaming u
Michael Schwendt wrote:
> Are you trying to say the Fedora Project has made it much too easy for
> them to leave and have their account disabled, too?
I'm saying that it's the ever-increasing bureaucracy which causes us to lose
maintainers, that's all.
> No, it isn't. Even in the scenario of pro
33 matches
Mail list logo
