On 07/02/2010 12:47 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 12:41:18 -0400, Przemek wrote:
>
>> On 07/02/2010 12:09 AM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>>
>>> It's in stable now. The time in testing allowed us to fix and add
>>> several more packages to it and confirm that it did indeed fix things.
>>
On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 12:41:18 -0400, Przemek wrote:
> On 07/02/2010 12:09 AM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>
> > It's in stable now. The time in testing allowed us to fix and add
> > several more packages to it and confirm that it did indeed fix things.
>
> Maybe it's still being propagated, but when I did
On 07/02/2010 12:09 AM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> It's in stable now. The time in testing allowed us to fix and add
> several more packages to it and confirm that it did indeed fix things.
Maybe it's still being propagated, but when I did update --skip-broken
followed by yum update, right now (Fri Jul
On Fri, Jul 02, 2010 at 03:46:29AM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > It's only in updates-testing yet.
>
> Now this is complete nonsense. The update is required to fix broken
> dependencies so it should go to stable IMMEDIATELY.
people make mistakes. it happens, no big deal.
p
On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 03:46:29 +0200
Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > It's only in updates-testing yet.
>
> Now this is complete nonsense. The update is required to fix broken
> dependencies so it should go to stable IMMEDIATELY.
It's in stable now. The time in testing allowed us to
Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> It's only in updates-testing yet.
Now this is complete nonsense. The update is required to fix broken
dependencies so it should go to stable IMMEDIATELY.
Kevin Kofler
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listin
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> To me this is a clear case of package-push which should not have
> happened and is not related to karma votes at all.
+1. The proper solution to prevent this kind of issues 100% reliably is to
implement AutoQA, the only decent part of the Update Proposal and the one
which
On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 14:28:40 -0500, Michael wrote:
> Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > A_copy_ to users' list would suffice. Test updates are relevant to the
> > users - and the build reports are sort of an early warning system about
> > what updates will likely be unleashed. It's especially relevant t
On Tue, 2010-06-29 at 14:28 -0500, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > A_copy_ to users' list would suffice. Test updates are relevant to the
> > users - and the build reports are sort of an early warning system about
> > what updates will likely be unleashed. It's especially
Michael Schwendt wrote:
> A_copy_ to users' list would suffice. Test updates are relevant to the
> users - and the build reports are sort of an early warning system about
> what updates will likely be unleashed. It's especially relevant to the
> users, when the updates aren't tested prior to enter
On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 10:05:59 -0700, Adam wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-06-29 at 12:44 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 23:03:23 -0600, Kevin wrote:
> >
> > > It's only in updates-testing yet.
> >
> > Gah! :-/
> >
> > I wonder whether after years the "Fedora N updates-testing repo
On Tue, 2010-06-29 at 12:44 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 23:03:23 -0600, Kevin wrote:
>
> > It's only in updates-testing yet.
>
> Gah! :-/
>
> I wonder whether after years the "Fedora N updates-testing report" could
> finally be sent to users' list instead of test list?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 6/29/10 3:44 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 23:03:23 -0600, Kevin wrote:
>
>> It's only in updates-testing yet.
>
> Gah! :-/
>
> I wonder whether after years the "Fedora N updates-testing report" could
> finally be sent to use
On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 23:03:23 -0600, Kevin wrote:
> It's only in updates-testing yet.
Gah! :-/
I wonder whether after years the "Fedora N updates-testing report" could
finally be sent to users' list instead of test list? Who can make that
happen?
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.
On Tue, 2010-06-29 at 06:58 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 06/29/2010 06:17 AM, Braden McDaniel wrote:
>
> > Updating F13 now works;
>
> Does it?
>
> Not for me.
Sigh... You're right. Some other updates happened and I thought this
one was included. But it just got skipped.
--
Braden McD
On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 06:58:54 +0200
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 06/29/2010 06:17 AM, Braden McDaniel wrote:
>
> > Updating F13 now works;
>
> Does it?
>
> Not for me.
It's only in updates-testing yet.
Also, pidgin needed to be added to it. It failed rebuild due to a new
tcl in the buildroot.
On 06/29/2010 06:17 AM, Braden McDaniel wrote:
> Updating F13 now works;
Does it?
Not for me.
...
Resolving Dependencies
--> Running transaction check
--> Processing Dependency: libedataserver-1.2.so.11 for package:
pidgin-evolution-2.7.1-2.fc13.i686
--> Processing Dependency: libedataserver-1
On Fri, 2010-06-25 at 16:27 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Can anybody tell me what went wrong with this update? It was submitted
> at 15:09 on 06-23, then made it into testing at 16:19 on 06-24 and was
> submitted for stable two hours later. B
On Sat, 2010-06-26 at 12:14 -0400, Luke Macken wrote:
> > The requirement for proventester feedback for critpath updates, when we
> > turn it on, should also catch problems like this in the critpath. Evo
> > isn't critpath, though, I believe.
>
> evolution-data-server is in the critpath, and havi
On Sat, 2010-06-26 at 11:59 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 06/26/2010 11:20 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> >
> > Clearly the maintainer did not allow sufficient time for testing here;
> > there's a grand 4 hour window between the update being 'pushed to
> > testing' and 'submitted to stable'. That
On 06/26/2010 05:10 AM, Peter Robinson wrote:
> That would only work if the script that does the push to stable (as
> opposed to processing the request to push to stable) checks if any
> negative karma has appeared since the request has happened.
Well, if there is a update push to stable request t
On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 12:14 PM, Luke Macken wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-06-25 at 22:50 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
>> I talked to notting &c about this earlier, and we've hit this situation
>> before. The 'scenario' is simply that there's really no screening
>> between 'submit' and 'push' for stable
On Fri, 2010-06-25 at 22:50 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> I talked to notting &c about this earlier, and we've hit this situation
> before. The 'scenario' is simply that there's really no screening
> between 'submit' and 'push' for stable updates, and this one was
> submitted to stable before any
On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 7:23 AM, Jesse Keating wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 6/25/10 10:50 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
>> Until AutoQA is in place to tackle this, the obvious option is for there
>> to be a process improvement whereby whoever's doing stable update p
On 06/26/2010 11:20 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
>
> Clearly the maintainer did not allow sufficient time for testing here;
> there's a grand 4 hour window between the update being 'pushed to
> testing' and 'submitted to stable'. That probably wasn't long enough for
> it even to hit any public mirror
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 6/25/10 10:50 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> Until AutoQA is in place to tackle this, the obvious option is for there
> to be a process improvement whereby whoever's doing stable update pushes
> at least gets notified if a package has received negativ
On 06/26/2010 07:33 AM, Adam Miller wrote:
> Sounds like it might need to be. Maybe push stable requests with -2 karma to
> some list that requires investigation and possibly a +3 (or other agreed
> upon number) proventesters karma to go stable?
Would you mind to explain how could have happened:
On Fri, 2010-06-25 at 16:27 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Can anybody tell me what went wrong with this update? It was submitted
> at 15:09 on 06-23, then made it into testing at 16:19 on 06-24 and was
> submitted for stable two hours later. Be
Sounds like it might need to be. Maybe push stable requests with -2 karma to
some list that requires investigation and possibly a +3 (or other agreed
upon number) proventesters karma to go stable?
Just a thought.
-AdamM (From Android)
On Jun 25, 2010 6:27 PM, "Jesse Keating" wrote:
-BEGIN
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Can anybody tell me what went wrong with this update? It was submitted
at 15:09 on 06-23, then made it into testing at 16:19 on 06-24 and was
submitted for stable two hours later. Between that submission and the
push to stable (push to stable happene
30 matches
Mail list logo
