On 03/03/2012 03:11 AM, Tore Anderson wrote:
> * Adam Williamson
>
>>> Yes please. Besides, you promised as much in the F12 release notes...
>>
>> I'm _pretty_ sure I didn't write those. =)
>
> I meant «you» as in «The Fedora Project». ;-)
It's not a promise. Its a bug in the documentation. Ha
On Friday, March 2, 2012, 4:21:13 PM, Jóhann wrote:
> Some people seem to be confusing this like this would instantly take
> effect which is not the case here.
> We are just talking about automating the "NonResponsiveMaintainers
> policy" as is so instead of an reporter to manually perform these
* Tom Callaway
> On 03/02/2012 04:39 PM, Tore Anderson wrote:
>> This one *most likely* works (it assumes /sbin/dhclient in Fedora will
>> *always* use a link-local source address when building a DHCPv6 request.
>> I believe that is the case, but I have not reviewed its source code to
>> verify):
On Fri, 2012-03-02 at 14:51 -0700, Nathanael D. Noblet wrote:
> On 03/02/2012 02:41 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Fri, 2012-03-02 at 09:34 -0700, Nathanael D. Noblet wrote:
> >> On 03/02/2012 06:59 AM, Neal Becker wrote:
> I believe Fedora 17 has an add user to admin group checkbox when
>
On 03/02/2012 02:41 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Fri, 2012-03-02 at 09:34 -0700, Nathanael D. Noblet wrote:
On 03/02/2012 06:59 AM, Neal Becker wrote:
I believe Fedora 17 has an add user to admin group checkbox when
adding the initial user, not sure if it is checked on or off by default.
Ac
On Fri, 2012-03-02 at 18:45 +0100, Sergio Pascual wrote:
> Hi, regarding this problem (polkit asks you for the password of
> another user), I have filled this bug report
>
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=799480
>
> I have hit this problem myself in several computers.
So if you foll
On Fri, 2012-03-02 at 17:37 +, Pádraig Brady wrote:
> On 02/07/2012 12:54 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Mon, 2012-02-06 at 23:19 +, Pádraig Brady wrote:
> >> On 02/06/2012 10:40 PM, Brian C. Lane wrote:
> >>> In Fedora 16 we changed to using GPT as the default disklabel for new
> >>> in
On 03/02/2012 04:39 PM, Tore Anderson wrote:
> This one *most likely* works (it assumes /sbin/dhclient in Fedora will
> *always* use a link-local source address when building a DHCPv6 request.
> I believe that is the case, but I have not reviewed its source code to
> verify):
>
> ip6tables -A INPU
On Fri, 2012-03-02 at 09:34 -0700, Nathanael D. Noblet wrote:
> On 03/02/2012 06:59 AM, Neal Becker wrote:
> >> I believe Fedora 17 has an add user to admin group checkbox when
> >> adding the initial user, not sure if it is checked on or off by default.
> >>
> >>
> > Actually, FC16 has this featur
* Adam Williamson
>> Yes please. Besides, you promised as much in the F12 release notes...
>
> I'm _pretty_ sure I didn't write those. =)
I meant «you» as in «The Fedora Project». ;-)
--
Tore Anderson
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/
* Tom Callaway
> I know less than nothing about DHCPv6. I used the rule offered earlier
> in the thread by Paul Wouters. If there is a more appropriate ruleset,
> please tell me what it is and I'll regenerate the patch.
This one will certainly work (it's the patch attached bug #591630):
ip6table
On Fri, 2012-03-02 at 10:18 -0500, Matthias Clasen wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-03-01 at 21:53 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
>
> >
> > In case anyone's wondering what that actually does, here's what I can
> > figure out.
> >
> > What it does directly is to add the user to the 'wheel' group. I'm not
> >
On Fri, 2012-03-02 at 08:42 -0600, Greg Swift wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 05:36, Nikos Roussos
> wrote:
> Here is a weird example of how Fedora currenty handles some
> permission procedures. I created a standard user account (no
> admin rights) and I'm trying to install
On Mar 2, 2012, at 2:20 PM, Pádraig Brady wrote:
>
> Model: ATA ST9500420AS (scsi)
> Disk /dev/sda: 500GB
> Sector size (logical/physical): 512B/512B
> Partition Table: gpt
> Disk Flags: pmbr_boot
>
> Number Start End SizeFile system Name Flags
> 1 1049kB 2097kB 1049kB
On Fri, 2012-03-02 at 15:22 +0100, Tore Anderson wrote:
> > Looking forward, we might at some point want to explicitly 'support'
> > IPv6 in the release criteria, by specifying that 'connect to the
> > network' means all permutations of IPv4 / IPv6 networks should work...
>
> Yes please. Besides,
A file has been added to the lookaside cache for perl-Statistics-Descriptive:
6b296c635bb856a3af0f420c0d78863f Statistics-Descriptive-3.0400.tar.gz
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin
On 03/02/2012 07:54 PM, drago01 wrote:
I understand that this is frustrating to you but your solution is just
wrong IMO.
We don't have infinite resources so throwing people out just because
they did not respond withing a week is a bad joke. The better fix here
is ... you want to do the change fil
On 03/02/2012 07:09 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
>
> On Mar 2, 2012, at 10:37 AM, Pádraig Brady wrote:
>
>> Yep as expected F17 alpha is broken in the same way on my laptop.
>
> Your laptop is what hardware? Any install media kernel parameters used? What
> installation type? Can you provide both an
On 03/02/2012 03:59 PM, Tore Anderson wrote:
> * Tom Callaway
>
>> As a temporary fix until the more "complete" service entry can be
>> added, I propose this patch. Anaconda invokes:
>>
>> /usr/sbin/lokkit --quiet --nostart -f
>>
>> This writes out the "default" firewall, where everything is locke
On 03/02/2012 07:34 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
Related to this, Pierre-YvesChibon wrote a tool to check a bunch of
things for a fedora account, so you could at least see if someone was
still active in some areas while not in others:
https://github.com/pypingou/fedora-active-user
If you are running
* Tom Callaway
> As a temporary fix until the more "complete" service entry can be
> added, I propose this patch. Anaconda invokes:
>
> /usr/sbin/lokkit --quiet --nostart -f
>
> This writes out the "default" firewall, where everything is locked
> down, except for the hardcoded rules in system-co
2012/3/2 "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" :
> I am a feature owner for a feature that involves components in the hundreds
> and is heavily depended on maintainers responsiveness.
>
> For me to start enacting the non responsive maintainers policy is a
> tremendous work thus I'm wondering if there is somethin
On Fri, 2 Mar 2012 13:53:55 -0500
Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Karel Zak (k...@redhat.com) said:
> > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_nonresponsive_package_maintainers
> >
> > * After 2 attempts of no contact, the reporter asks if anyone
> > knows how to contact the maintainer.
> >
> > *
On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 8:42 AM, Greg Swift wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 05:36, Nikos Roussos wrote:
>>
>> Here is a weird example of how Fedora currenty handles some permission
>> procedures. I created a standard user account (no admin rights) and I'm
>> trying to install a package. When I pre
ons 2012-02-29 klockan 17:51 -0500 skrev Simo Sorce:
> That said I understand your pain and the realize the current solution is
> not ideal for the casual user. Maybe we should have 2 security profiles
> (lax and strict) that you can choose at install time so that people can
> choose what they lik
2012/3/2 Michał Piotrowski :
> More frightening benchmarks are shown here
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FegjLbCnoBw
That was a pretty cool video. Makes me want to try XFS again.
Richard
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On Mar 2, 2012, at 10:37 AM, Pádraig Brady wrote:
> Yep as expected F17 alpha is broken in the same way on my laptop.
Your laptop is what hardware? Any install media kernel parameters used? What
installation type? Can you provide both an fdisk and parted (or gdisk) listing
of the post-installa
On Fri, Mar 02, 2012 at 13:53:55 -0500,
Bill Nottingham wrote:
>
> 2) It doesn't solve the problem of a non-responsive maintainer where the
> requester *DOESN'T* want to take over the package.
>
> For example, just because I might have a an issue getting a needed change
> into glibc doesn't me
Karel Zak (k...@redhat.com) said:
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_nonresponsive_package_maintainers
>
> * After 2 attempts of no contact, the reporter asks if anyone knows how
>to contact the maintainer.
>
> * After another 7 days, the reporter posts a formal request to the
>
On Fri, 2 Mar 2012 18:36:02 + (UTC)
Andre Robatino wrote:
> In
>
> https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/602
>
> http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2011-06-08/fesco.2011-06-08-17.30.log.html
>
> it was decided to name the Live images using i386 instead of i686, to
> make them
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=798239
Tom "spot" Callaway changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
In
https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/602
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2011-06-08/fesco.2011-06-08-17.30.log.html
it was decided to name the Live images using i386 instead of i686, to make them
consistent. This appears to have slipped through the cracks.
--
devel mailing
On Fri, Mar 02, 2012 at 11:33:28AM -0500, Neal Becker wrote:
> Be careful what you wish for. btrfs is not a clear win on performance.
>
[...] phoronix.com [...]
Be careful what you believe.
Rich.
--
Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones
New in Fedora 1
On Fri, Mar 02, 2012 at 10:20:10AM +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> An bugzilla script that acts something like if maintainer has not
> responded to a bug report with the status new in a week ( or some
> other time ) the non responsive maintainers policy automatically
> starts taking effect.
On Mar 2, 2012, at 10:26 AM, Kevin Wright wrote:
> On Feb 29, 2012, at 9:18 AM, Chris Murphy wrote:
>>
>> On Feb 29, 2012, at 7:08 AM, Nikos Roussos wrote:
>>
>>> Why not add by default the first user created (right after installation
>>> finishes) to administrative group and disable the root
Lets drop this subthread please?
I don't think it's doing anyone any good to see you two hitting back
and forth.
If you must, take it to private email?
kevin
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman
Hi,
I've just submit the update of PHP 5.4.0 finale
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/php-5.4.0-1.fc17
So, feature is completed
Remi.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
commit 72fe6842108bd93e9f268d5c0d8f64f513df864d
Author: Tom Callaway
Date: Fri Mar 2 13:12:45 2012 -0500
0.9904
.gitignore |1 +
perl-Wx.spec |7 +--
sources |2 +-
3 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
---
diff --git a/.gitignore b/.gitignore
index a680f
A file has been added to the lookaside cache for perl-Wx:
e7422f7d25c1d44ef4fe1ca2a728d6a9 Wx-0.9904.tar.gz
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl
On 03/02/2012 11:20 PM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> On 03/02/2012 05:29 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>> That was completely uncalled for.
>
> I disagree
Let me put in another way then. Cut that out. Talking about your world
vs my world makes it personal not to mention sarcastic there is zero
On Friday, March 2, 2012, 12:23:51 PM, Jóhann wrote:
> On 03/02/2012 05:10 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>> Again, what access do you need and who have you asked for it?
> It's pretty obvious that this is a proposal I made today thus I have
> asked no one for it nor can I since infrastructure has mad
On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 11:23 PM, Buddhika Kurera
wrote:
> Understood, sorry for the misunderstand :)
>
no problem
> On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 11:21 PM, Kalpa Welivitigoda
> wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 11:11 PM, Buddhika Kurera
>> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 11:07 PM, Kalpa Welivitigod
Understood, sorry for the misunderstand :)
On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 11:21 PM, Kalpa Welivitigoda wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 11:11 PM, Buddhika Kurera
> wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 11:07 PM, Kalpa Welivitigoda
>> wrote:
>>> hi,
>>>
>>> I am willing to participate at GSoC 2012 as a stude
On 03/02/2012 05:29 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
That was completely uncalled for.
I disagree
I know for a fact that you are well aware of the EOL and other script
that is used with bugzilla so you were well aware this was technically
achievable and you then your self go about asking me to star
On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 11:11 PM, Buddhika Kurera
wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 11:07 PM, Kalpa Welivitigoda
> wrote:
>> hi,
>>
>> I am willing to participate at GSoC 2012 as a student and I have
>> proposed a project to sugar labs [1] to build a automated rpm
>> generating system. I named the
Hi, regarding this problem (polkit asks you for the password of
another user), I have filled this bug report
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=799480
I have hit this problem myself in several computers.
Regards, Sergio
2012/3/2 Greg Swift :
> On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 05:36, Nikos Rousso
Summary of changes:
6c88ef6... update to 0.004002 (*)
(*) This commit already existed in another branch; no separate mail sent
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/
commit 6c88ef6b68f594e714f82b08d68f26195e27dbc3
Author: Iain Arnell
Date: Fri Mar 2 10:41:29 2012 -0700
update to 0.004002
.gitignore |1 +
perl-Contextual-Return.spec |5 -
sources |2 +-
3 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-
On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 11:07 PM, Kalpa Welivitigoda wrote:
> hi,
>
> I am willing to participate at GSoC 2012 as a student and I have
> proposed a project to sugar labs [1] to build a automated rpm
> generating system. I named the project autorpmgen [2] which is
> basically a system to automatical
hi,
I am willing to participate at GSoC 2012 as a student and I have
proposed a project to sugar labs [1] to build a automated rpm
generating system. I named the project autorpmgen [2] which is
basically a system to automatically build rpms from the sugar
activities and keep them in a separate rep
On 02/07/2012 12:54 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-02-06 at 23:19 +, Pádraig Brady wrote:
>> On 02/06/2012 10:40 PM, Brian C. Lane wrote:
>>> In Fedora 16 we changed to using GPT as the default disklabel for new
>>> installs. In a few cases, mostly limited to Lenovo hardware, we foun
On 03/02/2012 10:53 PM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> On 03/02/2012 05:10 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>> Again, what access do you need and who have you asked for it?
>
> It's pretty obvious that this is a proposal I made today thus I have
> asked no one for it nor can I since infrastructure has
A file has been added to the lookaside cache for perl-Contextual-Return:
701cc06595f986538568df1708f5b031 Contextual-Return-0.004002.tar.gz
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedorap
On Feb 29, 2012, at 9:18 AM, Chris Murphy wrote:
>
>
> On Feb 29, 2012, at 7:08 AM, Nikos Roussos wrote:
>
>> Why not add by default the first user created (right after installation
>> finishes) to administrative group and disable the root account?
>
>
> This is, is fact, how Apple has don
On 03/02/2012 05:10 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Again, what access do you need and who have you asked for it?
It's pretty obvious that this is a proposal I made today thus I have
asked no one for it nor can I since infrastructure has made it clear to
me when I asked them to fix my user accounti
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 03/02/2012 10:45 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
> for a simple service like postfix or dbmail? surely not!
I disagree.
> i even sent a bunlde of systemd-units to the devel-list
As I informed you at that time, sending a bundle is not very useful.
Yo
On 03/02/2012 10:26 PM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> On 03/02/2012 04:49 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>> What access do you need? If you need something to test and you don't
>> have access, run your own instance.
>
> Here you assume that people have enough hw or vm capable hardware to do
> so wh
On 03/02/2012 08:41 AM, Rich Megginson wrote:
--
389-devel mailing list
389-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-devel
ack
--
389-devel mailing list
389-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-devel
- Original Message -
> From: "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"
> To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Sent: Friday, March 2, 2012 6:56:47 PM
> Subject: Re: Automating the NonResponsiveMaintainers policy
>
> On 03/02/2012 04:49 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> > What access do you need? If you need som
On Fri, Mar 02, 2012 at 03:27:24PM +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> On 03/02/2012 03:21 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> >Process looks like this:
> >
> >* Guidelines updated
> >* Someone notices that the package does not follow the guidelines (Note that
> > this step does not require that the
On 03/02/2012 04:55 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
This timeline is not reasonable. It typically takes half an hour to an
hour to write and test it properly
Add another half an hour for an individual not familiar with the spec
file making the necessary adjustments to the spec file and test rebuild
Am 02.03.2012 17:55, schrieb Aleksandar Kurtakov:
> Have you ever thought that for number of people this systemd units might be
> something
> they know nothing about and they need to spend time on it?
have you ever thought that i wrote the systemd-units for nearly all
relevant services on my p
On 03/02/2012 04:49 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
What access do you need? If you need something to test and you don't
have access, run your own instance.
Here you assume that people have enough hw or vm capable hardware to do
so which is not in my case.
And this only requires copying the curre
https://fedorahosted.org/389/ticket/305
https://fedorahosted.org/389/attachment/ticket/305/0001-Ticket-305-Certain-CMP-operations-hang-or-cause-ns-s.patch
Thanks,
Mark
--
389-devel mailing list
389-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-devel
--
389-d
On 03/02/2012 10:15 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
> * writing the systemd-unit takes 2 minutes for postfix
> * no need for package anything, install put it locally in /etc/systemd/system
> * so testing takes another 3 minutes, no compile needed
This timeline is not reasonable. It typically takes half
- Original Message -
> From: "Reindl Harald"
> To: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
>
> Cc: "Aleksandar Kurtakov"
> Sent: Friday, March 2, 2012 6:45:14 PM
> Subject: Re: Automating the NonResponsiveMaintainers policy
>
>
>
> Am 02.03.2012 17:35, schrieb Aleksandar Kurtak
- Original Message -
> From: "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"
> To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Sent: Friday, March 2, 2012 6:45:24 PM
> Subject: Re: Automating the NonResponsiveMaintainers policy
>
> On 03/02/2012 04:42 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> >> > Yes the automation would just automat
On 03/02/2012 10:15 PM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> On 03/02/2012 04:42 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>>> > Yes the automation would just automate these steps ending with
>>> posting
>>> > the formal request to devel for fesco to pick up.
>>> >
>> The best way to convince people is to actually
Am 02.03.2012 17:35, schrieb Aleksandar Kurtakov:
>> it takes exactly 5 minutes to write a systemd-unit for most
>> services like postfix/dbmail and nothing happens, even
>> not if the one you called "boy" submits patches, unit-files
>> and pinging maintainers since 3 releases with the result get
Am 02.03.2012 17:23, schrieb Thomas Moschny:
> Am 2. März 2012 16:56 schrieb Reindl Harald :
>> what are all these maintainers doing?
>>
>> it takes exactly 5 minutes to write a systemd-unit for most
>> services
>
> Some packages need a bit more love, especially when the sysv init
> scripts did
Am 02.03.2012 17:20, schrieb Karel Zak:
> On Fri, Mar 02, 2012 at 01:09:00PM +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
>> you are missing the differences between "ignored", "assigend" and "fixed"
>> where did you see a line that a bug must be fixed in whatever time?
>> you did not because it is not there
>>
>>
On Fri, 2 Mar 2012 12:53:35 + (UTC)
Petr Pisar wrote:
> On 2012-03-01, Michal Schmidt wrote:
> > Dne 1.3.2012 17:52, Petr Pisar napsal(a):
> >> where to get public key for verifying RPM signatures.
> >
> > The keys are at: https://fedoraproject.org/keys
> >
> And F16 primary key (A82BA4B7) i
On 03/02/2012 04:42 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> Yes the automation would just automate these steps ending with posting
> the formal request to devel for fesco to pick up.
>
The best way to convince people is to actually just do it. Post a
script and show that it can be done.
Do we have ac
Hi,
2012/3/2 Neal Becker :
> Be careful what you wish for. btrfs is not a clear win on performance.
More frightening benchmarks are shown here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FegjLbCnoBw
This does not surprise me. Btrfs has more features than Ext4, so it
may be slower.
If anyone wants Btrfs as
0001-init-txn-thread-private-data-for-all-database-modes.patch
Description: application/mbox
--
389-devel mailing list
389-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-devel
On 03/02/2012 10:04 PM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
>
> Yes the automation would just automate these steps ending with posting
> the formal request to devel for fesco to pick up.
>
The best way to convince people is to actually just do it. Post a
script and show that it can be done.
Rahul
-
On 03/02/2012 04:29 PM, Karel Zak wrote:
On Fri, Mar 02, 2012 at 04:13:44PM +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
Why do you think it's a bad idea automating a process that is now done
manually?
because:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_nonresponsive_package_maintainers
* After 2
- Original Message -
> From: "Reindl Harald"
> To: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
>
> Sent: Friday, March 2, 2012 5:56:10 PM
> Subject: Re: Automating the NonResponsiveMaintainers policy
>
>
> Am 02.03.2012 16:47, schrieb Karel Zak:
> > On Fri, Mar 02, 2012 at 10:20:10AM
On 03/02/2012 06:59 AM, Neal Becker wrote:
I believe Fedora 17 has an add user to admin group checkbox when
adding the initial user, not sure if it is checked on or off by default.
Actually, FC16 has this feature (and I use it). But this is sometimes even more
confusing. Does that dialog wan
Be careful what you wish for. btrfs is not a clear win on performance.
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=linux_33_btrfs&num=1
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On 03/02/2012 04:23 PM, Thomas Moschny wrote:
Am 2. März 2012 16:56 schrieb Reindl Harald:
what are all these maintainers doing?
it takes exactly 5 minutes to write a systemd-unit for most
services
Some packages need a bit more love, especially when the sysv init
scripts did more than just sta
On Fri, Mar 02, 2012 at 04:13:44PM +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> Why do you think it's a bad idea automating a process that is now done
> manually?
because:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_nonresponsive_package_maintainers
* After 2 attempts of no contact, the reporter asks
Am 2. März 2012 16:56 schrieb Reindl Harald :
> what are all these maintainers doing?
>
> it takes exactly 5 minutes to write a systemd-unit for most
> services
Some packages need a bit more love, especially when the sysv init
scripts did more than just starting / stopping a service., e.g.
creatin
On 03/02/2012 03:45 PM, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
You are looking for re-review of packages mentioned many times before.
But we have problems to find reviewers for new one, so I don't believe
we would find enough people for this.
If it's an manual process sure I can understand why it's hard to r
On Fri, Mar 02, 2012 at 01:09:00PM +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
> you are missing the differences between "ignored", "assigend" and "fixed"
> where did you see a line that a bug must be fixed in whatever time?
> you did not because it is not there
>
> the point is that if a reporter takes time to f
On 03/02/2012 03:47 PM, Karel Zak wrote:
What's your project boy? .. create a huge collection of dirty words?;-)
Sorry not following where you are going with this?
IMHO it's bad idea.
Why do you think it's a bad idea automating a process that is now done
manually?
JBG
--
devel mailin
Am 02.03.2012 16:47, schrieb Karel Zak:
> On Fri, Mar 02, 2012 at 10:20:10AM +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
>> I am a feature owner for a feature that involves components in the hundreds
>> and is heavily depended on maintainers responsiveness.
>>
>> For me to start enacting the non respons
- Original Message -
> From: "Reindl Harald"
> To: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
>
> Sent: Friday, March 2, 2012 2:09:00 PM
> Subject: Re: Automating the NonResponsiveMaintainers policy
>
>
>
> Am 02.03.2012 13:00, schrieb Matthias Runge:
> > On 02/03/12 12:52, Aleksan
On Fri, Mar 02, 2012 at 13:55:11 +,
"\"Jóhann B. Guðmundsson\"" wrote:
> I'm not a packager already nor can I become one since I dont want to
> maintain a single package in the distribution since "it does not
> scratch my ich" but I would like to be able to fix things if I do
> come across t
On 03/01/2012 12:48 PM, Thomas Woerner wrote:
> On 03/01/2012 04:52 PM, Paul Wouters wrote:
>> On Thu, 1 Mar 2012, Dan Williams wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 2012-02-29 at 17:20 +0100, Tore Anderson wrote:
* Jerry James
> Interesting. I'm seeing kind of the inverse problem:
> https://bugz
On Fri, Mar 02, 2012 at 10:20:10AM +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> I am a feature owner for a feature that involves components in the hundreds
> and is heavily depended on maintainers responsiveness.
>
> For me to start enacting the non responsive maintainers policy is a
> tremendous work
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 03/02/2012 10:38 AM, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-03-01 at 20:49 -0500, Daniel J Walsh wrote:
>> On 03/01/2012 05:43 PM, Adam Jackson wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2012-03-01 at 16:39 -0500, Daniel J Walsh wrote:
>>>
I believe Fedora 17 has an add
On 03/02/2012 04:27 PM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> On 03/02/2012 03:21 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
>> Process looks like this:
>>
>> * Guidelines updated
>> * Someone notices that the package does not follow the guidelines
>> (Note that
>>this step does not require that the Guidelines were
Am 02.03.2012 13:00, schrieb Matthias Runge:
> On 02/03/12 12:52, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
>>
>> If a maintainer doesn't respond to a bug repord with the status
>> new in a week - give commit rights to the reporter in pkgdb
>> so he/she can fix it himself.
> I kind a' like this proposal. You'r
Am 02.03.2012 12:47, schrieb Marcela Mašláňová:
> Some developers prefer ignore it until they have time. Why should I
> write yes, yes, it's broken, I'll look at it next month. That's not
> helping anyway.
IT DOES HELP
it is a hughe difference for a bugreporter if he feels
a month ignored or be
On Fri, Mar 02, 2012 at 12:34:10 +,
"\"Jóhann B. Guðmundsson\"" wrote:
>
> One way to achieve that would be that one could do so by becoming
> proven packager through some kind of mentoring process ( which does
> not exist btw ) I would think.
I would think the implied process for someone
Am 02.03.2012 12:02, schrieb Marcela Mašláňová:
> Ok, so you'll automatically start non-responsive maintainer process,
> because maintainer didn't work on a one bug. But he might be working on
> different component for whole month. He might be working on a new
> upstream release and not paying at
how can it be that migration-kernel-threads have
107h when the uptime is around 4 days and the
machine is mostly not cpu-bound?
see screenshot
seems to affect only the 3.x kernels (Fedora 15 2.6.4x)
<>
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedorap
On Thu, 2012-03-01 at 20:49 -0500, Daniel J Walsh wrote:
> On 03/01/2012 05:43 PM, Adam Jackson wrote:
> > On Thu, 2012-03-01 at 16:39 -0500, Daniel J Walsh wrote:
> >
> >> I believe Fedora 17 has an add user to admin group checkbox when
> >> adding the initial user, not sure if it is checked on
On Fri, Mar 02, 2012 at 12:16:28 +,
"\"Jóhann B. Guðmundsson\"" wrote:
> On 03/02/2012 11:52 AM, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
> >So I would make a contra-proposal.
> >
> >If a maintainer doesn't respond to a bug repord with the status new in a
> >week - give commit rights to the reporter in p
1 - 100 of 166 matches
Mail list logo
