I'm still seeing the wifi lockup issues on 3.3.2-1.fc17.x86_64.
The logs show:
Apr 26 21:02:53 thinkpad kernel: [262822.181984] iwlwifi :02:00.0: Queue 2
stuck for 2000 ms.
Apr 26 21:02:53 thinkpad kernel: [262822.181992] iwlwifi :02:00.0: Current
S W read_ptr 214 write_ptr 218
Apr 2
On 26/04/12 03:18 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Wed, 2012-04-25 at 17:27 -0600, Dariusz J. Garbowski wrote:
Does that imply that new installs will be easily switched from firewalld
to static iptables? I always do new install but I want to keep my firewall
static, with my current iptables script
There will be another outage of fedorahosted.org at
2012-04-27 02:00 UTC that could last around 2 hours.
We will be backing out to our previous hosts until we can work out some
issues with group handling on the new cluster.
Please follow:
https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-infrastructure/ticket/
No dia 26 de Abril de 2012 21:35, Toshio Kuratomi escreveu:
> On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 08:49:32PM +0100, Nelson Marques wrote:
>> No dia 26 de Abril de 2012 19:49, Toshio Kuratomi
>> escreveu:
>> > On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 12:58:59PM +0100, Nelson Marques wrote:
>> >> BZ718430
>> >>
>> > So readin
On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 08:49:32PM +0100, Nelson Marques wrote:
> No dia 26 de Abril de 2012 19:49, Toshio Kuratomi
> escreveu:
> > On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 12:58:59PM +0100, Nelson Marques wrote:
> >> BZ718430
> >>
> > So reading that with the meat seeming to come from here:
> > https://bugzilla.
No dia 26 de Abril de 2012 20:52, Paul Wouters escreveu:
> On Thu, 26 Apr 2012, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
>
>> So the big question is -- where did this break down? How can we update
>> our
>> documentation to guide people in this direction?
>
>
> I find bugzilla as the core around which to navigate
On Thu, 26 Apr 2012, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
So the big question is -- where did this break down? How can we update our
documentation to guide people in this direction?
I find bugzilla as the core around which to navigate where things are
in a process difficult and inconvenient. Its emails don
No dia 26 de Abril de 2012 19:49, Toshio Kuratomi escreveu:
> On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 12:58:59PM +0100, Nelson Marques wrote:
>> No dia 26 de Abril de 2012 12:40, Adam Williamson
>> escreveu:
>> > On Thu, 2012-04-26 at 12:18 +0100, Nelson Marques wrote:
>> >
>> >> I was asked by a upstream to mai
On 26/04/12 20:57, Matthias Runge wrote:
Something like that works well in learning environments, why it should
work here?
should read:
... why it shouldn't work here?
--
Matthias Runge
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/l
On 26/04/12 20:37, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
That's in the proposal, too.
Ahem, I'm sorry, I must have skipped that.
Regarding activity report: When doing statistics, I'd love
to see the review-status report again. I don't remember when and why it
vanished; it makes work of packagers/reviewe
On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 12:58:59PM +0100, Nelson Marques wrote:
> No dia 26 de Abril de 2012 12:40, Adam Williamson
> escreveu:
> > On Thu, 2012-04-26 at 12:18 +0100, Nelson Marques wrote:
> >
> >> I was asked by a upstream to maintain a package for Fedora due to the
> >> high demand it has from F
Am 26.04.2012 11:18, schrieb Adam Williamson:
>> Does that imply that new installs will be easily switched from firewalld
>> to static iptables? I always do new install but I want to keep my firewall
>> static, with my current iptables script.
>
> Once we actually go to firewalld by default, the
I get an md5 error when I try to make a live usb with fedora's
live-usb creator. Anyone else seen this?
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
> "MR" == Matthias Runge writes:
MR> exactly, I fully agree. I think, we should lower the barrier to
MR> become a sponsor, maybe dropping the necessity to become a proven
MR> packager first.
I can't quite tell; are you aware that this is the core point of the
proposal I've put forward at the
On 26/04/12 16:32, Paul Wouters wrote:
On Thu, 26 Apr 2012, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
That's not really within the scope of the document. I haven't proposed
lowering the standards for reviewing packages.
I think there is quiet a group of experienced packagers, who do not
consider themselves
I doubt anyone would notice, but the above drivers have been retired in
F18. They're all for ancient hardware, and none have been installed by
default since Fedora 9 (with zero complaints, as far as I can tell). I
have no interest in keeping them building anymore.
If someone really desperately w
2012/4/26 Frank Murphy :
> On 26/04/12 18:50, Michał Piotrowski wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Is it possible to upgrade now from F16 to F17 with preupgrade?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Has anyone tried to preupgrade from F16 to F17? Are there any problems
>> related to UsrMove (or anything else)?
>>
>>
>
> I did it two day
On 26/04/12 18:50, Michał Piotrowski wrote:
Is it possible to upgrade now from F16 to F17 with preupgrade?
Has anyone tried to preupgrade from F16 to F17? Are there any problems
related to UsrMove (or anything else)?
I did it two days ago.
No problems KVM Guest GPT formatted.
F16.Xfce.x8
Hi,
W dniu 9 kwietnia 2012 17:46 użytkownik Michał Piotrowski
napisał:
> Hi,
>
> 2012/4/5 Robyn Bergeron :
>> At the Go/No-Go meeting it was decided to slip the Beta by an additional
[..]
>> * Blockers (rbergeron, 15:16:41)
>
>
> If I remember correctly, those were some problems with preupgrade
On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 11:37:54 -0500, JLTI (Jason) wrote:
> MS> What if there are sponsors with expertise in special areas, who are
> MS> available to help'n'sponsor other contributors in such areas only?
>
> That was intended to be covered by the "assuming there are
> sufficient..." language in th
On 04/26/2012 11:40 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
you can expect the review to
take longer, especially if you make no active efforts to try and find
someone to review it - by mailing the list, offering review swaps,
poking people you know within Fedora, pulling in favours etc.
This is a part of a
Currently the f17 building for this package is failed.
See: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=10099
2012/4/26 Ralf Corsepius
> Hi,
>
> I don't know what is going on, but from what I see, the f17 repositories
> currently seem to contain multiple versions of packages and bin
On 04/26/2012 06:37 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
"MS" == Michael Schwendt writes:
I don't believe so, no. I do believe that you are reading something
into my proposal that simply is not there, however.
MS> What if sponsors _try_ but for some time haven't found anyone who
MS> shows enou
Hi,
I don't know what is going on, but from what I see, the f17 repositories
currently seem to contain multiple versions of packages and
binary/src.rpm mismatches:
E.g.:
17/x86_64/os/Packages/i/ibus-table-code-1.2.0.20100305-8.fc15.noarch.rpm
17/x86_64/os/Packages/i/ibus-table-code-1.3.0.201
> "MS" == Michael Schwendt writes:
MS> Are we talking past eachother? :-/
I don't believe so, no. I do believe that you are reading something
into my proposal that simply is not there, however.
MS> What if sponsors _try_ but for some time haven't found anyone who
MS> shows enough interest
On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 18:13:52 +0200, AL (Alec) wrote:
> But isn't part of the problem that
> current process forces people which just are interested in a package to
> suddenly discover that they are applying to be packagers?
We are in need of _more_ packagers, not less packagers who grab a hundr
- Original Message -
> From: "Alec Leamas"
> To: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
>
> Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2012 7:13:52 PM
> Subject: Re: Proposal for revitalizing the sponsorship process for packaging
>
> On 04/26/2012 05:49 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > On Thu, 26
# F17 Final Blocker Review meeting #2
# Date: 2012-04-27
# Time: 17:00 UTC [1] (13:00 EDT, 10:00 PDT)
# Location: #fedora-bugzappers on irc.freenode.net
The second F17 final blocker bug review meeting will be this Friday at
17:00 UTC in #fedora-bugzappers. We'll be running through the beta
blocker
On 04/26/2012 05:49 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 17:32:17 +0200, AL (Alec) wrote:
OT? The question here isn't really what submitters do or don't, isn't
it what we could do to improve the process?.
The point is that not all submitters are collaborative, and others don't
seek
The lightweight tag 'perl-AnyEvent-7.0-1.fc18' was created pointing to:
9ee0873... Update to 7.0
--
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-devel
On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 10:49 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 17:32:17 +0200, AL (Alec) wrote:
>
>> OT? The question here isn't really what submitters do or don't, isn't
>> it what we could do to improve the process?.
>
> The point is that not all submitters are collaborative, a
commit 9ee0873160cc99ec5265aa08721626713197dc2f
Author: Paul Howarth
Date: Thu Apr 26 16:43:55 2012 +0100
Update to 7.0
- Update to 7.0
- Package generates no debuginfo, so avoid creation of debuginfo sub-package
- Add explicit build requirements for the module's needs
On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 17:32:17 +0200, AL (Alec) wrote:
> OT? The question here isn't really what submitters do or don't, isn't
> it what we could do to improve the process?.
The point is that not all submitters are collaborative, and others don't
seek for sponsors actively. In the needsponsor que
I got the trailing link wrong, here is same message with link OK (no
punctuation )
On 04/26/2012 04:58 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 15:17:09 +0200, AL (Alec) wrote:
[cut]
And for the second part, that somebody has "a good connection with
upstream", I'm not sure how that w
On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 09:20:22 -0500, JLTI (Jason) wrote:
> MS> Forcing sponsors to fulfill such criteria is the wrong way IMO. It
> MS> may result in even more blanket-approval sponsorships.
>
> I don't happen to agree, but at some point shouldn't sponsors do
> something?
Are we talking past each
On 04/26/2012 04:58 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 15:17:09 +0200, AL (Alec) wrote:
[cut]
And for the second part, that somebody has "a good connection with
upstream", I'm not sure how that will help, *if* not even one packager
is available. Worse if the single person with intere
>>
>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Project_Wiki#How_do_I_get_involved.3F
>> https://join.fedoraproject.org/
>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join
>> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Join
>
> I agree for the first three, the last one a little less.
>
> Does anyone know if t
On 04/26/2012 12:08 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
This approach completely disregards the very common example of "I'm an
upstream maintainer of a cool project. I want to package and maintain it
for Fedora." Under your approach, they'd first have to become involved
in other projects before being al
On Thu, 2012-04-26 at 12:49 +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote:
>
> >> However if I am a newcomer, how can I find the "easyfix" link from
> >> fedora homepage? Or how can I find it at all?
> > I am considering marking this as 'easyfix' ;-)
> >
> > This is a good question though and at the moment I do not ha
On 04/26/2012 04:20 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
"MS" == Michael Schwendt writes:
MS> Forcing sponsors to fulfill such criteria is the wrong way IMO. It
MS> may result in even more blanket-approval sponsorships.
I don't happen to agree, but at some point shouldn't sponsors do
something
Le Jeu 26 avril 2012 16:32, Paul Wouters a écrit :
> On Thu, 26 Apr 2012, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
>
>> That's not really within the scope of the document. I haven't proposed
>> lowering the standards for reviewing packages.
>
> I think there is quiet a group of experienced packagers, who do n
Hi,
I have started to update a bunch of R packages to the latest version of
bioconductor.
Feel free to test and give karma:
F17:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/R-fibroEset-1.4.7-1.fc17,R-hgu95av2cdf-2.10.0-1.fc17,R-maanova-1.26.0-1.fc17,R-multtest-2.12.0-1.fc17,R-preprocessCore-1.18.0-1
On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 15:17:09 +0200, AL (Alec) wrote:
> I'm not talking about cooperation in that sense. I'm talking about a
> more formalized way for people who want something packaged to find a
> packager. As an alternative to force people without informal connections
> to become packagers for
On Thu, 26 Apr 2012, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
That's not really within the scope of the document. I haven't proposed
lowering the standards for reviewing packages.
I think there is quiet a group of experienced packagers, who do not
consider themselves provenpackers, but who would like to h
Hello folks!
Well, the title says it all. Fedora Tour[1], which we recently decided
to make a web application needs web developers. Ironic eh? The thing is:
none of the current Fedora Tour team members have ever done web
development before. We’re learning, but the changes with HTML5, CSS3 and
Java
> "MS" == Michael Schwendt writes:
MS> There are a few unfortunate sections in the first paragraph already:
Except that they're all true.
>> users have to go through an almost endless set of steps (which also
>> needs revision, but that's another topic)
MS> Compared with a few years ago the
On 03/29/2012 10:44 AM, Terry Barnaby wrote:
> On 03/28/2012 12:31 PM, Caterpillar wrote:
>>
>>
>> 2012/3/28 Terry Barnaby mailto:ter...@beam.ltd.uk>>
>>
>> On 03/26/2012 09:20 PM, J. Randall Owens wrote:
>> > On 03/26/2012 06:05 AM, Terry Barnaby wrote:
>> >> Hi,
>> >>
>> >> I
On 04/21/2012 08:38 AM, Terry Barnaby wrote:
> On 21/04/12 08:10, Terry Barnaby wrote:
>> Some update appears to have broken the operation of ypbind recently.
>> I have a F14 sever that serves /home and implements NIS services (ypserv)
>> and has been running fine for over a year.
>>
>> The F16 cli
On 04/26/2012 03:02 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 13:59:30 +0200, AL (Alec) wrote:
[cut]
What I'm talking about is to tell these great people that there are two
ways to get their app packaged. One way is to become a packager, and so
far this discussion is about that path,. Obv
Hello,
This was forwarded to the related maintainers earlier, but an ABI bump
is required for the matio update in F-18.
I don't plan to update it in F-17.
There is a license change involved from LGPL2+ to BSD (2 clauses).
I've tested the rebuilt for vips and it went fine.
Thx
Nicolas (kwizart)
On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 8:02 AM, Alec Leamas wrote:
> On 04/26/2012 02:30 PM, Jon Ciesla wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 6:59 AM, Alec Leamas
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 04/26/2012 01:18 PM, Nelson Marques wrote:
No dia 26 de Abril de 2012 01:08, Stephen Gallagher
escreveu:
>
On 04/26/2012 02:30 PM, Jon Ciesla wrote:
On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 6:59 AM, Alec Leamas wrote:
On 04/26/2012 01:18 PM, Nelson Marques wrote:
No dia 26 de Abril de 2012 01:08, Stephen Gallagher
escreveu:
On Wed, 2012-04-25 at 22:43 +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
Why not just drop th
On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 13:59:30 +0200, AL (Alec) wrote:
> Still, besides this sad experience, isn't this the kind of cooperation
> we should encourage? Now and then those great people with great apps
> want their app in Fedora. Instead of saying "Wonderful, welcome", we
> send them a list of an ac
As a new-comers, you will be able to find a list of projects which have
bugs/requests considered to be easy to work on (ie: you do not need a
deep understanding of the project to fix/implement it).
The projects are divers and the tickets broad : from fixing typo, add a
link
On Tue, 2012-04-24 at 22:31 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> (Note: *DO NOT* run the installer that is on this image. You'll probably
> end up with a broken grub. Should be fixed soon)
>
> I've put a test image up at
> http://mjg59.fedorapeople.org/Fedora-Mac-EFI-test.iso - this should work
> if
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 04/26/2012 06:49 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> Dne 26.4.2012 12:25, Pierre-Yves Chibon napsal(a):
>> On Thu, 2012-04-26 at 12:19 +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote:
>>> Dne 26.4.2012 11:12, Pierre-Yves Chibon napsal(a):
Good news everyone (© Farnsworth),
On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 6:59 AM, Alec Leamas wrote:
> On 04/26/2012 01:18 PM, Nelson Marques wrote:
>>
>> No dia 26 de Abril de 2012 01:08, Stephen Gallagher
>> escreveu:
>>>
>>> On Wed, 2012-04-25 at 22:43 +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
Why not just drop the sponsorship process
- Original Message -
> From: "Nelson Marques"
> To: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
>
> Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2012 2:18:50 PM
> Subject: Re: Proposal for revitalizing the sponsorship process for packaging
>
> No dia 26 de Abril de 2012 01:08, Stephen Gallagher
> escre
On 04/26/2012 01:18 PM, Nelson Marques wrote:
No dia 26 de Abril de 2012 01:08, Stephen Gallagher
escreveu:
On Wed, 2012-04-25 at 22:43 +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
Why not just drop the sponsorship process and just raise the barrier of
entry for the packaging process instead?
Like
No dia 26 de Abril de 2012 12:40, Adam Williamson
escreveu:
> On Thu, 2012-04-26 at 12:18 +0100, Nelson Marques wrote:
>
>> I was asked by a upstream to maintain a package for Fedora due to the
>> high demand it has from Fedora users, unfortunatly I backed down from
>> the proposal for several pur
On Thu, 2012-04-26 at 12:18 +0100, Nelson Marques wrote:
> I was asked by a upstream to maintain a package for Fedora due to the
> high demand it has from Fedora users, unfortunatly I backed down from
> the proposal for several purposes:
>
> 1) Someone claimed to own the package since 2009, but
No dia 26 de Abril de 2012 01:08, Stephen Gallagher
escreveu:
> On Wed, 2012-04-25 at 22:43 +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
>>
>> Why not just drop the sponsorship process and just raise the barrier of
>> entry for the packaging process instead?
>>
>> Like having to have been a comaintainer
Compose started at Thu Apr 26 08:18:45 UTC 2012
Broken deps for x86_64
--
[aeolus-conductor]
aeolus-conductor-0.4.0-2.fc17.noarch requires ruby(abi) = 0:1.8
[aeolus-configserver]
aeolus-configserver-0.4.5-1.fc17.noarch require
Dne 26.4.2012 12:25, Pierre-Yves Chibon napsal(a):
On Thu, 2012-04-26 at 12:19 +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Dne 26.4.2012 11:12, Pierre-Yves Chibon napsal(a):
Good news everyone (© Farnsworth),
The easyfix project is now live:
http://fedoraproject.org/easyfix/
As a new-comers, you will be able
On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 3:55 PM, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-04-26 at 12:19 +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote:
>> Dne 26.4.2012 11:12, Pierre-Yves Chibon napsal(a):
>> > Good news everyone (© Farnsworth),
>> >
>> > The easyfix project is now live:
>> > http://fedoraproject.org/easyfix/
>> >
>>
- Original Message -
> From: "Michael Schwendt"
> To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2012 1:01:51 PM
> Subject: Re: Proposal for revitalizing the sponsorship process for packaging
>
> On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 17:03:25 -0500, JLTI (Jason) wrote:
>
> > For a while n
On Thu, 2012-04-26 at 12:19 +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> Dne 26.4.2012 11:12, Pierre-Yves Chibon napsal(a):
> > Good news everyone (© Farnsworth),
> >
> > The easyfix project is now live:
> > http://fedoraproject.org/easyfix/
> >
> >
> > As a new-comers, you will be able to find a list of projects w
On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 20:08:46 -0400, SG (Stephen) wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-04-25 at 22:43 +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> >
> > Why not just drop the sponsorship process and just raise the barrier of
> > entry for the packaging process instead?
> >
> > Like having to have been a comaintaine
Dne 26.4.2012 11:12, Pierre-Yves Chibon napsal(a):
Good news everyone (© Farnsworth),
The easyfix project is now live:
http://fedoraproject.org/easyfix/
As a new-comers, you will be able to find a list of projects which have
bugs/requests considered to be easy to work on (ie: you do not need a
On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 10:45:53 +0200, MR (Matthias) wrote:
> On 26/04/12 09:45, drago01 wrote:
> > Well the idea was that a sponsor is a trusted packer so why would he
> > "demolish all packages"?
> > IMO the bar for being a provenpacker shouldn't be that high. Having
> > more manpower (as in people
On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 17:03:25 -0500, JLTI (Jason) wrote:
> For a while now I have been working on a proposal for some changes to
> both the way we elevate packagers to sponsors and what (to a small
> extent) sponsors actually do. Please note that this is not a proposal
> for any changes to how peo
On Wed, 2012-04-25 at 17:27 -0600, Dariusz J. Garbowski wrote:
> On 25/04/12 10:55 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Tue, 2012-04-24 at 09:30 -0500, Jon Ciesla wrote:
> >
> >> Nothing is being taken away, the default is being changed. If you're
> >> using Fedora in production, I presume you're ins
On 26.4.2012 02:08, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
This approach completely disregards the very common example of "I'm an
upstream maintainer of a cool project. I want to package and maintain it
for Fedora." Under your approach, they'd first have to become involved
in other projects before being allowe
Good news everyone (© Farnsworth),
The easyfix project is now live:
http://fedoraproject.org/easyfix/
As a new-comers, you will be able to find a list of projects which have
bugs/requests considered to be easy to work on (ie: you do not need a
deep understanding of the project to fix/implement i
commit 9e707dbe5eee377f289152ff76d627fed0e217fb
Author: Paul Howarth
Date: Thu Apr 26 09:50:54 2012 +0100
BR: perl(Data::Dumper) and various minor tweaks
- BR: perl(Data::Dumper)
- Don't need to remove empty directories from buildroot
- Don't need to run test suite with LC_
On 26/04/12 09:45, drago01 wrote:
> Well the idea was that a sponsor is a trusted packer so why would he
> "demolish all packages"?
> IMO the bar for being a provenpacker shouldn't be that high. Having
> more manpower (as in people that can fix things globally) should be
> something we want
I
On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 9:33 AM, Matthias Runge
wrote:
> On 26/04/12 00:21, Ken Dreyer wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 4:03 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III
>> wrote:
>>> My proposal is at
>>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Tibbs/RevitalizingSponsorshipProposal
>>>
>>> I've run this by FESCo, who
Is anyone else seeing on F17 TC1 startup a systemd message that iptables failed?
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On 26/04/12 00:21, Ken Dreyer wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 4:03 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III
> wrote:
>> My proposal is at
>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Tibbs/RevitalizingSponsorshipProposal
>>
>> I've run this by FESCo, whose response was favorable, so I'm sending
>> this to a larger au
79 matches
Mail list logo
