Thankyou for starting all this hard work with the certainty that it *will*
be blamed by some people.
As an end User I extremely like that Fedora does not ban newer packages from
Stable releases.
At the same time I can see how direct pushes can sometimes create unforseen
bugs.
I however do not se
Hello,
I have seen the long thread about Updates Policy. I just wish
to inform you that I (as part of the QA team) have been working
on a draft of exactly such a policy. I suppose I will be able
to make it public during this week. I will post a link here,
so all the people will have some basis wh
2010/3/1 Richard Hughes :
> On 28 February 2010 18:39, James Antill wrote:
>> I can't think of any reason why you'd need, or want, to have
>> updates-testing checks block any other GUI operation.
>
> To show the list of newest updates to the user...
>
>>> If we could speed up the dep checking and
On 28 February 2010 18:39, James Antill wrote:
> I can't think of any reason why you'd need, or want, to have
> updates-testing checks block any other GUI operation.
To show the list of newest updates to the user...
>> If we could speed up the dep checking and downloading, I agree it
>> would b
On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 2:25 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Mail Lists wrote:
>> Kernel should follow mainline stable - as reasonably soon after
>> release and our testing as possible.
>>
>> Core daemons - ditto.
>
> But that's quite different from what that proposed policy mandates.
No it isn't ..
Mail Lists wrote:
> Kernel should follow mainline stable - as reasonably soon after
> release and our testing as possible.
>
> Core daemons - ditto.
But that's quite different from what that proposed policy mandates.
Kevin Kofler
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Josh Boyer wrote:
> We do target daily pushes.
Then that's a good thing, and shouldn't be changed as that old proposed
policy would be trying to do. ;-)
> There are a lot of mitigating factors that sometimes prevent a push
> getting done in 24 hours, [etc.]
OK, got that. I'm not really complain
On Mon, Mar 01, 2010 at 12:25:01AM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>drago01 wrote:
>> There has been a draft a while ago which did not result into much
>> discussion ..
>>
>> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Desktop/Whiteboards/UpdateExperience
>>
>> Which looks pretty sane to me.
>
>It looks very insane
On 02/28/2010 06:25 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> drago01 wrote:
>> There has been a draft a while ago which did not result into much
>> discussion ..
>>
>> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Desktop/Whiteboards/UpdateExperience
>>
>> Which looks pretty sane to me.
>
> It looks very insane to me:
> * only
drago01 wrote:
> There has been a draft a while ago which did not result into much
> discussion ..
>
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Desktop/Whiteboards/UpdateExperience
>
> Which looks pretty sane to me.
It looks very insane to me:
* only critical bugfixes, security fixes and hardware enablemen
On Sat, 2010-02-27 at 15:21 +, Richard Hughes wrote:
> On 26 February 2010 22:54, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > - If stable pushes were more restricted, perhaps that would get us more
> > testing? If someone required a newer version and could easier
> > install/test from updates-testing and provide
On 27 February 2010 19:31, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
> This sounds interesting, was this a plugin or configuration setting?
> Could this be something people can opt-in to at first?
in /etc/PackageKit/PackageKit.conf, the idea was to set
CheckTestingRepos to true. I'm not sure the code is actually
On 02/27/2010 04:21 PM, Richard Hughes wrote:
> On 26 February 2010 22:54, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>> - If stable pushes were more restricted, perhaps that would get us more
>> testing? If someone required a newer version and could easier
>> install/test from updates-testing and provide feedback, don
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 11:54 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> I'm putting my thoughts here... but this is again one of those threads
> that has about 500 forks and people nit picking back and forth, so I am
> never sure where to do a general reply. ;)
There has been a draft a while ago which did not res
On 26 February 2010 22:54, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> - If stable pushes were more restricted, perhaps that would get us more
> testing? If someone required a newer version and could easier
> install/test from updates-testing and provide feedback, don't we all
> win? Perhaps we could have PackageKit/
Till Maas wrote:
> Pushing less updates to F(current-1) is probably something many
> maintainers can live with. But I have also heard of people using
> F(current-1) and feeling like secondary users, because they did not get
> the updates that F(current) got.
Yes. IMHO the old stable release deserv
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 03:54:02PM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> b. Given a, I would say people should stop posting to this thread. If
> you have a better updates policy in mind, perhaps you could draft up a
> proposal for what you think it should be? Or wait for a real proposal
> to comment on?
Si
I'm putting my thoughts here... but this is again one of those threads
that has about 500 forks and people nit picking back and forth, so I am
never sure where to do a general reply. ;)
First some background:
a. There is no policy to discuss here, as we don't yet have a proposal.
I would expec
18 matches
Mail list logo
