Adam Williamson wrote:
> Really? I don't think there's *that* many cases where a negative piece
> of karma is filed between the submission and the push which you'd want
> to ignore.
I think there are actually very many. We get a lot of invalid -1 votes for
KDE updates (issues which have been ther
Michael Schwendt wrote:
> The longer it takes to push packages into a repo, the longer the window
> that creates the race condition. It could be that the push has completed
> 98% of the stuff that needs to be done, and a tester would vote -1 late
> because of a show-stopper bug in one package.
>
>
Rakesh Pandit wrote:
> No change in normal process. Just 2-3 days extra between this
> particular case in which a nack (-ve karma) is received between
> maintainer requesting a push for stable and rel-eng submitting it. It
> will prevent `race condition` where say maintainer wants to pull it
> back
On Tue, 2010-05-18 at 10:58 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Mon, 17 May 2010 12:24:14 +0100, Richard wrote:
>
> > > 4) People adding negative karma because "unrelated bug that has been
> > > present in the older version is still not fixed"
> >
> > I get this all the time. It would be nice to
On Mon, 17 May 2010 12:24:14 +0100, Richard wrote:
> > 4) People adding negative karma because "unrelated bug that has been
> > present in the older version is still not fixed"
>
> I get this all the time. It would be nice to be able to have a
> "discount this karma" button for maintainers, rathe
On Monday, May 17, 2010, 7:24:14 AM, Richard Hughes wrote:
> On 14 May 2010 14:22, drago01 wrote:
>> 4) People adding negative karma because "unrelated bug that has been
>> present in the older version is still not fixed"
> I get this all the time. It would be nice to be able to have a
> "discou
On 14 May 2010 14:22, drago01 wrote:
> 4) People adding negative karma because "unrelated bug that has been
> present in the older version is still not fixed"
I get this all the time. It would be nice to be able to have a
"discount this karma" button for maintainers, rather than having to
add an
Jesse Keating said the following on 05/14/2010 08:58 AM Pacific Time:
> On Fri, 2010-05-14 at 06:52 -0700, John Poelstra wrote:
>> I'm up for the challenge previously having been told it wasn't
>> possible for release criteria and blocker bugs ;-)
>>
>>
>
> And we're still making judgment calls
On Fri, 2010-05-14 at 20:27 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
> What is releng supposed to do here though? We can't be experts in every
> package. How are we to know that the negative karma is really
> appropriately negative, or bad negative, or just misfiled or confused
> users? That's what the main
On Fri, 14 May 2010 20:27:51 -0700, Jesse wrote:
> What is releng supposed to do here though?
It's a hard problem related to tools *and* people.
The longer it takes to push packages into a repo, the longer the window
that creates the race condition. It could be that the push has completed
98% of
On Fri, 2010-05-14 at 19:42 -0500, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
> Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Thu, 2010-05-13 at 13:45 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
> >
> >>> current karma next to each push request? Or maybe Bodhi could be
> >>> configured to automatically cancel stable requests when the karma drops
> >>>
Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-05-13 at 13:45 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
>
>>> current karma next to each push request? Or maybe Bodhi could be
>>> configured to automatically cancel stable requests when the karma drops
>>> below 0?
>>
>> I can look at doing this on the client side for pushes.
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 08:58:04 -0700,
Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-05-14 at 06:52 -0700, John Poelstra wrote:
> > I'm up for the challenge previously having been told it wasn't
> > possible for release criteria and blocker bugs ;-)
> >
> >
>
> And we're still making judgment cal
On Fri, 2010-05-14 at 06:52 -0700, John Poelstra wrote:
> I'm up for the challenge previously having been told it wasn't
> possible for release criteria and blocker bugs ;-)
>
>
And we're still making judgment calls there, because it is very very
difficult to codify.
--
Jesse Keating
Fedo
On Fri, 2010-05-14 at 14:09 +0200, Christoph Wickert wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, den 13.05.2010, 06:22 -0700 schrieb John Poelstra:
>
> > I'd like to see these "would take a fix for" bugs added or kept on the
> > blocker list with a short comment explaining why they are being taken in
> > since they
Am Donnerstag, den 13.05.2010, 06:22 -0700 schrieb John Poelstra:
> I'd like to see these "would take a fix for" bugs added or kept on the
> blocker list with a short comment explaining why they are being taken in
> since they don't meet the regular definition of "blocker bug".
Isn't this exact
Adam Williamson said the following on 05/13/2010 11:26 AM Pacific Time:
> On Thu, 2010-05-13 at 02:42 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>> On 05/13/2010 02:37 AM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
>>> There was an open ticket requesting Pino. There was not anything from
>>> the maintainers requesting the games.
>>
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 3:12 AM, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 11:23:10PM +0100, Adam Williamson wrote:
>>On Thu, 2010-05-13 at 15:53 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
>>
>>> If we combine that with requiring valid bug numbers before negative karma
>>> can
>>> be applied, then I'd be ok with
On 14 May 2010 09:50, Matt McCutchen wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-05-14 at 09:31 +0530, Rakesh Pandit wrote:
>> On 14 May 2010 06:42, Josh Boyer wrote:
>> > On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 11:23:10PM +0100, Adam Williamson wrote:
>> >>Really? I don't think there's *that* many cases where a negative piece
>> >>of
On Fri, 2010-05-14 at 09:31 +0530, Rakesh Pandit wrote:
> On 14 May 2010 06:42, Josh Boyer wrote:
> > On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 11:23:10PM +0100, Adam Williamson wrote:
> >>Really? I don't think there's *that* many cases where a negative piece
> >>of karma is filed between the submission and the push
On 14 May 2010 06:42, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 11:23:10PM +0100, Adam Williamson wrote:
>>On Thu, 2010-05-13 at 15:53 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
>>
>>> If we combine that with requiring valid bug numbers before negative karma
>>> can
>>> be applied, then I'd be ok with that. Unti
On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 11:23:10PM +0100, Adam Williamson wrote:
>On Thu, 2010-05-13 at 15:53 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
>
>> If we combine that with requiring valid bug numbers before negative karma can
>> be applied, then I'd be ok with that. Until we require that, there are way
>> to
>> many cor
On Thu, 2010-05-13 at 15:53 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
> If we combine that with requiring valid bug numbers before negative karma can
> be applied, then I'd be ok with that. Until we require that, there are way to
> many corner cases where something like that isn't going to work well.
Really? I d
On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 07:31:32PM +0100, Adam Williamson wrote:
>On Thu, 2010-05-13 at 13:45 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
>
>> >current karma next to each push request? Or maybe Bodhi could be
>> >configured to automatically cancel stable requests when the karma drops
>> >below 0?
>>
>> I can look at
On Thu, 2010-05-13 at 13:45 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
> >current karma next to each push request? Or maybe Bodhi could be
> >configured to automatically cancel stable requests when the karma drops
> >below 0?
>
> I can look at doing this on the client side for pushes. That's a pretty good
> idea.
On Thu, 2010-05-13 at 02:42 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 05/13/2010 02:37 AM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> > There was an open ticket requesting Pino. There was not anything from
> > the maintainers requesting the games.
> >
>
> I did mention this on IRC but what is the criteria for pulling in
On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 01:19:49PM -0400, Bernie Innocenti wrote:
>El Thu, 13-05-2010 a las 09:22 -0700, Jesse Keating escribió:
>
>> It's a little of both. once the update has been requested for stable,
>> the maintainer could rescind that request before releng does the push.
>> However there are
El Thu, 13-05-2010 a las 19:39 +0530, Ankur Sinha escribió:
> It works normally here. No breakage at all
I figured out that something in my config file was making it crash:
http://people.sugarlabs.org/bernie/q3config.cfg
I had no time to bisect it against a pristine configuration file, so I'm
n
El Thu, 13-05-2010 a las 09:22 -0700, Jesse Keating escribió:
> It's a little of both. once the update has been requested for stable,
> the maintainer could rescind that request before releng does the push.
> However there are generally hundreds of updates across the releases that
> get pushed at
On Thu, 2010-05-13 at 10:03 -0400, Bernie Innocenti wrote:
> El Thu, 13-05-2010 a las 09:53 -0400, Bernie Innocenti escribió:
>
> > I gave a -1 to this update a few days ago, but it's been ignored:
> >
> > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/openarena-0.8.5-1.fc13
> >
>
> Analyzing the eve
On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 09:06:39 -0500,
Jon Ciesla wrote:
> > I can prep for the test tonight, but it's a pain to do the final test
> > remotely. So that will wait until tomorrow.
> >
> Email me as soon as you want this done, and I'll do it ASAP.
Two people have confirmed that a combination
El Thu, 13-05-2010 a las 09:57 -0400, Seth Vidal escribió:
> sudo yum install fedora-easy-karma
> fedora-easy-karma
>
> follow the prompts (if any)
Works fantastically, thanks!
--
// Bernie Innocenti - http://codewiz.org/
\X/ Sugar Labs - http://sugarlabs.org/
--
devel mailing list
On Thu, 2010-05-13 at 10:03 -0400, Bernie Innocenti wrote:
> El Thu, 13-05-2010 a las 09:53 -0400, Bernie Innocenti escribió:
>
> > I gave a -1 to this update a few days ago, but it's been ignored:
> >
> > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/openarena-0.8.5-1.fc13
> >
>
> Analyzing the eve
On 05/12/2010 11:11 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 16:22:13 -0500,
>Jon Ciesla wrote:
>
>> My understanding was that we would still open a rel-eng ticket for a
>> freeze exception. Which I didn't do for Wesnoth. Because the outcry
>> for it was underwhelming.
>>
El Thu, 13-05-2010 a las 09:53 -0400, Bernie Innocenti escribió:
> I gave a -1 to this update a few days ago, but it's been ignored:
>
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/openarena-0.8.5-1.fc13
>
Analyzing the event log in Bodhi exposes where our quality process
ultimately fails: the upd
On Thu, 13 May 2010, Bernie Innocenti wrote:
> What we really need, imho, is a better QC process between packagers and
> stable updates. Bodhi was supposed to implement such process, but in
> fact it's mostly useless because there's no incentive for testers to go
> there and report about their e
El Wed, 12-05-2010 a las 15:59 -0500, Bruno Wolff III escribió:
> On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 02:23:38 +0530,
> Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> > On 05/13/2010 02:22 AM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> > > I don't see that pulling in the games is a good idea. The release process
> > > is
> > > that only blockers
Jesse Keating said the following on 05/12/2010 03:11 PM Pacific Time:
> On Thu, 2010-05-13 at 02:42 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>> On 05/13/2010 02:37 AM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
>>> There was an open ticket requesting Pino. There was not anything from
>>> the maintainers requesting the games.
>>>
On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 16:22:13 -0500,
Jon Ciesla wrote:
> My understanding was that we would still open a rel-eng ticket for a
> freeze exception. Which I didn't do for Wesnoth. Because the outcry
> for it was underwhelming.
And likely another rebuild will be needed shortly. I still need
On Thu, 2010-05-13 at 02:42 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 05/13/2010 02:37 AM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> > There was an open ticket requesting Pino. There was not anything from
> > the maintainers requesting the games.
> >
>
> I did mention this on IRC but what is the criteria for pulling in
On 05/12/2010 04:12 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 05/13/2010 02:37 AM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
>
>> There was an open ticket requesting Pino. There was not anything from
>> the maintainers requesting the games.
>>
>>
> I did mention this on IRC but what is the criteria for pulling in the
On 05/13/2010 02:37 AM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> There was an open ticket requesting Pino. There was not anything from
> the maintainers requesting the games.
>
I did mention this on IRC but what is the criteria for pulling in the
updates? If I knew what would be reasonable to request, it woul
On Wed, 2010-05-12 at 11:14 -0700, John Poelstra wrote:
> Jesse Keating said the following on 05/10/2010 04:08 PM Pacific Time:
> > Fedora 13 has released Release Candidate stage. We have reached a state
> > where the known blockers were fixed and were able to make a release
> > candidate. This h
Rahul Sundaram (methe...@gmail.com) said:
> > We took pino, we did not take the games.
>
> I would like to hear some more thoughts on that.
There was an open ticket requesting Pino. There was not anything from
the maintainers requesting the games.
Bill
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedorap
On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 02:23:38 +0530,
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 05/13/2010 02:22 AM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> > I don't see that pulling in the games is a good idea. The release process is
> > that only blockers should be pulled in right now, though that is being
> > bent a little. There shou
On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 10:53 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 05/13/2010 02:22 AM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
>> I don't see that pulling in the games is a good idea. The release process is
>> that only blockers should be pulled in right now, though that is being
>> bent a little. There should be some
On 05/13/2010 02:22 AM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> I don't see that pulling in the games is a good idea. The release process is
> that only blockers should be pulled in right now, though that is being
> bent a little. There should be some clarification done in that regard for
> the next release, but
On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 01:25:11 +0530,
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>
> I would like to hear some more thoughts on that. IMO, either the game
> update should getting pulled in or people should just accept that the
> size of the games are large and updates are going to be big as well and
> focus on
On 05/13/2010 01:07 AM, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-05-13 at 01:00 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>
>> Since a couple of people complained, have you considered taking in the
>> OpenArena and Wesnoth updates? How about the Pino update? I have a
>> ticket in trac for it.
>>
> We too
On Thu, 2010-05-13 at 01:00 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>
> Since a couple of people complained, have you considered taking in the
> OpenArena and Wesnoth updates? How about the Pino update? I have a
> ticket in trac for it.
We took pino, we did not take the games.
--
Jesse Keating
Fedora
On 05/13/2010 12:36 AM, Jesse Keating wrote:
> These were high value issues that were either discussed at the various
> blocker meetings as "we'd take this if we slipped, but wouldn't slip
> because of it", or made such a decision today while looking at tickets
> filed in releng requesting the buil
On Wed, 2010-05-12 at 11:14 -0700, John Poelstra wrote:
>
> I've noticed some discussion on #fedora-devel about "taking in
> nice-to-haves since the release is slipping." If these new packages are
> not blockers or critical to the release when/where did we decide to
> deviate from what is stat
Jesse Keating said the following on 05/10/2010 04:08 PM Pacific Time:
> Fedora 13 has released Release Candidate stage. We have reached a state
> where the known blockers were fixed and were able to make a release
> candidate. This happened last Thursday, and almost immediately we found
> a need
Fedora 13 has released Release Candidate stage. We have reached a state
where the known blockers were fixed and were able to make a release
candidate. This happened last Thursday, and almost immediately we found
a need to spin a second release candidate. From this point on, only
items critical t
Bojan Smojver rexursive.com> writes:
> No idea why nobody is interested in making
> hibernate/thaw work again.
Er, this is boot options that Anaconda stuffed into the kernel line:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=572771#c12
--
Bojan
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.
On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 07:54:41AM +1000, Bojan Smojver wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-04-29 at 14:43 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
> > It means that we will have hopefully reached a
> > point where all known release blockers¹ have been fixed and we are
> > read to compose the final release tree.
>
> Hate t
On Thu, 2010-04-29 at 14:43 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
> It means that we will have hopefully reached a
> point where all known release blockers¹ have been fixed and we are
> read to compose the final release tree.
Hate to rain on the parade, but has anyone even looked at this:
https://bugzilla
We will be entering the Release Candidate phase of Fedora 13 development
in one week's time.
What does this mean? It means that we will have hopefully reached a
point where all known release blockers¹ have been fixed and we are read
to compose the final release tree. The only changes accepted fr
58 matches
Mail list logo
