On Mon, 2019-02-11 at 11:56 -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 7:18 PM Adam Williamson
> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2018-09-20 at 08:33 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> > > There was a bug[1] filed recently that indicated that printing was
> > > broken on certain printers. As a res
On 3/12/19 11:28 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 2:53 AM Zdenek Dohnal wrote:
>> IMHO Stephen meant it as driverless 'driver' or IPP everywhere enabled
>> printer, since 'generic IPP driver' does not exist.
> OK.
>
>>> What supports IPP Everywhere out of the box?
>>>
>>> Any comp
On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 2:53 AM Zdenek Dohnal wrote:
>
> IMHO Stephen meant it as driverless 'driver' or IPP everywhere enabled
> printer, since 'generic IPP driver' does not exist.
OK.
> >
> > What supports IPP Everywhere out of the box?
> >
> > Any computer running CUPS 1.5 or later
> I beg to
On 3/11/19 10:52 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 2:56 PM Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>
>> * Printing must work on at least one printer available to Fedora QA.
>> "Work" is defined as the output from the device matching a preview
>> shown on the GNOME print preview display. (Note th
On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 2:56 PM Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> * Printing must work on at least one printer available to Fedora QA.
> "Work" is defined as the output from the device matching a preview
> shown on the GNOME print preview display. (Note that non-ridiculous
> differences in color reprodu
+1, I agree with proposed text.
On 2/28/19 10:56 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> I just realized I only responded to Zdenek the other day. Re-sending
> my response now.
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 9:13 AM Zdenek Dohnal wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> comments are in the text:
>>
>> On 2/11/19 9:17 PM, Steph
I just realized I only responded to Zdenek the other day. Re-sending
my response now.
On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 9:13 AM Zdenek Dohnal wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> comments are in the text:
>
> On 2/11/19 9:17 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 2:24 PM Chris Murphy
> > wrote:
> >> On
Hi,
comments are in the text:
On 2/11/19 9:17 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 2:24 PM Chris Murphy wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 9:58 AM Stephen Gallagher
>> wrote:
>>> Sorry that it's taken me so long to get back to this.
>>>
>>> I think the feedback on this has bee
On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 2:24 PM Chris Murphy wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 9:58 AM Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> >
> > Sorry that it's taken me so long to get back to this.
> >
> > I think the feedback on this has been mostly positive on the Beta
> > criteria, but I'd like to tweak the phrasing
On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 9:58 AM Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 7:18 PM Adam Williamson
> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 2018-09-20 at 08:33 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> > > There was a bug[1] filed recently that indicated that printing was
> > > broken on certain printers. As a
On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 7:18 PM Adam Williamson
wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2018-09-20 at 08:33 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> > There was a bug[1] filed recently that indicated that printing was
> > broken on certain printers. As a result of that discussion, it became
> > apparent that there was no cri
On Thu, 2018-09-20 at 08:33 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> There was a bug[1] filed recently that indicated that printing was
> broken on certain printers. As a result of that discussion, it became
> apparent that there was no criteria for printing to work at all, which
> seems like an oversight
On 9/20/18 6:47 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 10:22 AM, Peter Robinson wrote:
>>> There was a bug[1] filed recently that indicated that printing was
>>> broken on certain printers. As a result of that discussion, it became
>>> apparent that there was no criteria for printing to
On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 10:22 AM, Peter Robinson wrote:
>> There was a bug[1] filed recently that indicated that printing was
>> broken on certain printers. As a result of that discussion, it became
>> apparent that there was no criteria for printing to work at all, which
>> seems like an oversigh
> There was a bug[1] filed recently that indicated that printing was
> broken on certain printers. As a result of that discussion, it became
> apparent that there was no criteria for printing to work at all, which
> seems like an oversight.
>
> I discussed this briefly with Matthias Clasen this mor
Hi,
as CUPS maintainer, I agree with the idea of working printing as beta
criteria for Fedora.
I have two printers (Canon, HP) at my disposal, which I test cups,
cups-filters and hplip on when they have rebase. IMO it would be perfect
if such tests can be run every time when a component, which CU
On Thu, Sep 20, 2018, 7:50 AM Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 9:47 AM Ben Cotton wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 8:33 AM Stephen Gallagher
> wrote:
> > >
> > > I'd like to propose that we add the following criteria to Beta for
> Fedora 30+:
> > > * Printing must work o
On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 9:47 AM Ben Cotton wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 8:33 AM Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> >
> > I'd like to propose that we add the following criteria to Beta for Fedora
> > 30+:
> > * Printing must work on at least one printer available to Fedora QA.
> > "Work" is defined
On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 8:33 AM Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>
> I'd like to propose that we add the following criteria to Beta for Fedora 30+:
> * Printing must work on at least one printer available to Fedora QA.
> "Work" is defined as the output from the device matching a preview
> shown on the GNO
On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 8:40 AM Stephen Gallagher
wrote:
> I'd like to propose that we add the following criteria to Beta for Fedora
> 30+:
> * Printing must work on at least one printer available to Fedora QA.
>
> and this to Final for Fedora 30+:
> * Printing must work on at least one printer
On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 08:33:05AM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> There was a bug[1] filed recently that indicated that printing was
> broken on certain printers. As a result of that discussion, it became
> apparent that there was no criteria for printing to work at all, which
> seems like an ov
This one is interesting as well, since I was bitten by it:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1614978
V.
Dne 20.9.2018 v 14:33 Stephen Gallagher napsal(a):
> There was a bug[1] filed recently that indicated that printing was
> broken on certain printers. As a result of that discussion
There was a bug[1] filed recently that indicated that printing was
broken on certain printers. As a result of that discussion, it became
apparent that there was no criteria for printing to work at all, which
seems like an oversight.
I discussed this briefly with Matthias Clasen this morning and he
23 matches
Mail list logo
