Sorry for the delay in getting back.
On Fri, 2010-02-19 at 20:05 +0100, Till Maas wrote:
> I updated it to mention the ticket handling.
>
> I just wonder, is there no verification done one the request, e.g. is
> everybody allowed to request a build override or is it restricted to
> package (co)ma
On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 06:47:23AM +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 03/03/2010 05:54 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> >
> >> On 03/03/2010 05:17 AM, Jesse Keating wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 03:34 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> Where is the mock update?
>
>
On 03/03/2010 05:54 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>
>> On 03/03/2010 05:17 AM, Jesse Keating wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 03:34 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
Where is the mock update?
It's been nearly 2 weeks since you've promissed to do so, but this
hasn't
On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 10:54 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>
> Yet another perfect example of an update which should have been pushed
> directly to stable.
No, it's an example of an update that should have been pushed to
updates-testing sooner...
--
Jeff Ollie
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedor
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 03/03/2010 05:17 AM, Jesse Keating wrote:
>> On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 03:34 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>>> Where is the mock update?
>>>
>>> It's been nearly 2 weeks since you've promissed to do so, but this
>>> hasn't happened.
>>>
>>> There still are no mock configurati
On 03/03/2010 05:17 AM, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 03:34 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>> Where is the mock update?
>>
>> It's been nearly 2 weeks since you've promissed to do so, but this
>> hasn't happened.
>>
>> There still are no mock configurations providing setups for fedora-
On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 03:34 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> Where is the mock update?
>
> It's been nearly 2 weeks since you've promissed to do so, but this
> hasn't happened.
>
> There still are no mock configurations providing setups for fedora-13
> (/etc/mock/fedora-13-{i386,x86_64}.cfg)
mo
On 02/17/2010 03:16 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-02-17 at 05:45 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>> Am I correct in assuming, wcorresponding mock setups for and yum
>> mirrorlists reflecting this new setup will be in place in time when
>> these repos go on-line?
>>
>>
>
> yes. MirrorManager
On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 07:36:09AM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
> We don't really have a coverage list, but most of the people who have
> been doing tagging are all in the US time zones, so anything outside of
> that is welcome.
Ok.
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Buildroot_override_SOP is the w
On Thu, 2010-02-18 at 18:22 +0100, Christoph Wickert wrote:
> If the ticket is assigned to a single person, I doubt we can do the
> overwrites in a timely manner. Remember, I'm wasn't talking about a
> single overwrite but about large build chains that require 8 or 9 rounds
> of builds and up to 15
Am Donnerstag, den 18.02.2010, 07:36 -0800 schrieb Jesse Keating:
> We typically assign the ticket to ourself, whoever is doing
> the tag, so that when the reporter says the build is done we see it and
> can do the untag and close the ticket.
If the ticket is assigned to a single person, I doubt
On Thu, 2010-02-18 at 12:59 +0100, Till Maas wrote:
> I volunteer to help with buildroot overrides assuming that it does not
> take that much time. I am located in CET/UTC+1, too. Is there maybe a
> schedule about how well the timeslots are covered?
Great!
We don't really have a coverage list, b
On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 07:44:30PM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
> You're in Austria right? Rex wakes up before I do, which is why he's
> hitting them before me. Finding somebody on the other side of the pond
> who's interested in doing releng work would help.
I volunteer to help with buildroot o
On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 04:30:31AM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> If every grouped update did that, Koji would be littered with special tags.
> * problems with merging from the special tags (what if dist-f12-kde440 and
> dist-f12-someotherlib123 both carry their own rebuilds of, say, compiz? It
>
Jesse Keating wrote:
> You're in Austria right?
Yes. But my wake times tend to be very chaotic. ;-)
> Rex wakes up before I do, which is why he's hitting them before me.
> Finding somebody on the other side of the pond who's interested in doing
> releng work would help.
Right, having somebody w
On Thu, 2010-02-18 at 04:30 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Till Maas wrote:
> > I'll remember this. But why don't you use a special tag for this instead
> > of a buildroot override? I believe this question is not answered and I
> > even might have asked it once in IRC. ;-)
>
> Because, as has been s
On Thu, 2010-02-18 at 04:18 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> The question is, wouldn't it have been possible to, yes, branch early so
> Rawhide could move on (as we did), but have builds from F-13 land directly
> in dist-f13 until the Beta Freeze (as was done in the past and worked quite
> well)?
W
Till Maas wrote:
> I'll remember this. But why don't you use a special tag for this instead
> of a buildroot override? I believe this question is not answered and I
> even might have asked it once in IRC. ;-)
Because, as has been said earlier in this thread, special tags also have
their problems:
Jesse Keating wrote:
> Yes, that may be true. It is unfortunate that you'll now have to do a
> buildroot override task, but that was a negative impact we were willing
> to take.
The question is, wouldn't it have been possible to, yes, branch early so
Rawhide could move on (as we did), but have b
On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 01:32:33 +0100,
Christoph Wickert wrote:
> There is more flexibility for n+2 but I doubt that anybody will/can make
> use of it. We not even have a feature process for F14, so why would
> anyone start a feature now?
Because it didn't make it for F13?
I have stuff I want
On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 11:40:15PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Till Maas wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 03:28:37PM +0100, Christoph Wickert wrote:
> >
> >> Take KDE for example: Although the KDE SIG is doing a great job in
> >> avoiding breakdowns, I doubt that each and every maintainer of
On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 12:24:45AM +0100, Sven Lankes wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 11:40:15PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>
> >> Yes, I know, because I co-maintain a package using qt and I recently
> >> read something from the maintainer that he can not push a bugfix update
> >> to stable, beca
On Thu, 2010-02-18 at 01:32 +0100, Christoph Wickert wrote:
> This only works for things developed in Fedora or for projects like
> Gnome, because we are closely following their schedule. Other projects
> have other schedules and we need to be flexible. I really like no frozen
> rawhide, but IMO we
Am Mittwoch, den 17.02.2010, 06:45 -0800 schrieb Jesse Keating:
> On Wed, 2010-02-17 at 15:28 +0100, Christoph Wickert wrote:
> >
> > Right, now there no longer is early branching for selected packages on
> > demand but a general early branches for all packages.
>
> Except it's not really early.
Sven Lankes wrote:
> I'm assuming that Till is talking about my comment
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=549717#c2 on merkaartor
> (which he co-maintains).
>
> So nothing to see here - please move on. This is about not being able to
> do a scratch build of an svn-snapshot of merkaarto
On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 11:40:15PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> Yes, I know, because I co-maintain a package using qt and I recently
>> read something from the maintainer that he can not push a bugfix update
>> to stable, because a qt override is in the buildroot.
> The solution there is to tal
Christoph Wickert wrote:
> This means that large updates like Gnome, KDE or Xfce will get massively
> delayed after alpha. They might not make it into one of the prereleases,
> which means they get less testing. A lot of features will no longer be
> possible in their current state.
>
> How do we a
On Wed, 2010-02-17 at 23:21 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Jesse Keating wrote:
> > There is one small wrinkle. I've "broken" the dist-rawhide static repo,
> > because I've made dist-rawhide a real build target to be used by builds
> > from devel/. I'll be making a symlink soon that will keep
> > "
Matthias Clasen wrote:
> I don't use chain builds when updating gnome, so it can be done.
> Please just complain for yourself...
The problem is that in KDE, the application modules from 4.x.n need to be
built against at least kdelibs 4.x.n, not 4.x.n-1 (and likewise for other
dependencies). (Oft
Till Maas wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 03:28:37PM +0100, Christoph Wickert wrote:
>
>> Take KDE for example: Although the KDE SIG is doing a great job in
>> avoiding breakdowns, I doubt that each and every maintainer of a QT or
>> KDE app is always aware of the changes before they happen. If t
Christoph Wickert wrote:
> You are lucky. In the past people broke my package without further
> notice and I had to take care of fixing them. On the other hand there
> are maintainers, that announce changes in advance and ask me if I'm fine
> with them rebuilding my packages or if I want to take ca
Jesse Keating wrote:
> There is one small wrinkle. I've "broken" the dist-rawhide static repo,
> because I've made dist-rawhide a real build target to be used by builds
> from devel/. I'll be making a symlink soon that will keep
> "dist-rawhide" static repos pointed to the right location.
Why no
On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 11:52:57AM -0600, Matt Domsch wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 04:40:33PM +0100, Till Maas wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 06:11:58AM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
> >
> > > The branched repo config is the fedora.repo file. Mirrormanager will be
> > > making sure that goe
On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 04:40:33PM +0100, Till Maas wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 06:11:58AM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
>
> > The branched repo config is the fedora.repo file. Mirrormanager will be
> > making sure that goes to the right place. There is an updated
>
> Is this http://mirrors.
On Wed, 2010-02-17 at 17:57 +0100, Till Maas wrote:
>
> So how is the package set determined that builds the Alpha release? Is
> it everything which is pushed to F13 in Bodhi for 2010-02-24 at 20:00
> UTC, which is the time of the GO/NOGO meeting? Or is the Alpha release
> first composed and then
On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 07:36:00AM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-02-17 at 16:33 +0100, Till Maas wrote:
> > Is the branch freeze a week late or is it now the same as the alpha
> > freeze? In the "Important Release Milestones" wiki page[0], the branch
> > was scheduled for 2010-02-09, b
On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 06:11:58AM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
> The branched repo config is the fedora.repo file. Mirrormanager will be
> making sure that goes to the right place. There is an updated
Is this http://mirrors.fedoraproject.org/publiclist/Fedora/ the url for
mirrormanager? I have
On Wed, 2010-02-17 at 16:33 +0100, Till Maas wrote:
> Is the branch freeze a week late or is it now the same as the alpha
> freeze? In the "Important Release Milestones" wiki page[0], the branch
> was scheduled for 2010-02-09, but on the F13 Schedule[1], the "Alpha
> Freeze" links to the "Alpha Fre
On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 08:10:17PM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
> That's right folks, we are now branched for Fedora 13. What does this
> mean to you? Well that depends on who "you" are, here are some "you"s
> that we wrote about:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/No_frozen_rawhide_announce_plan#Us
On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 03:28:37PM +0100, Christoph Wickert wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, den 17.02.2010, 15:07 +0100 schrieb Till Maas:
> > On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 02:23:22PM +0100, Christoph Wickert wrote:
> >
> > > ...
> >
> > Usually when some of mine packages need to be rebuild because of updated
>
On Wed, 2010-02-17 at 15:50 +0100, Mathieu Bridon wrote:
> I think Frank's question was:
> In F12, I have a rawhide.repo I can use if I want to move to Rawhide.
> What do I use if I want to move to F13?
>
> At least, that's what I am wondering.
You'd install fedora-release from the branched repo
On Wed, 2010-02-17 at 10:04 +0100, Christoph Wickert wrote:
> This means that large updates like Gnome, KDE or Xfce will get massively
> delayed after alpha. They might not make it into one of the prereleases,
> which means they get less testing. A lot of features will no longer be
> possible in t
On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 15:11, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-02-17 at 08:26 +, Frank Murphy wrote:
>>
>> When will there be a "branched.repo" config for testers.
>> So they won't be getting "rawhide.repo".
>> It that's what they want\need.
>
> The branched repo config is the fedora.repo
On Wed, 2010-02-17 at 15:28 +0100, Christoph Wickert wrote:
>
> Right, now there no longer is early branching for selected packages onn
> demand but a general early branches for all packages.
Except it's not really early. We're now in bugfix/polish mode for
Fedora 13, not in rapid development mo
Am Mittwoch, den 17.02.2010, 15:07 +0100 schrieb Till Maas:
> On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 02:23:22PM +0100, Christoph Wickert wrote:
>
> > ...
>
> Usually when some of mine packages need to be rebuild because of updated
> dependencies, the communication is usually one-way. I get informed that
> the p
On Wed, 2010-02-17 at 05:45 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> Am I correct in assuming, wcorresponding mock setups for and yum
> mirrorlists reflecting this new setup will be in place in time when
> these repos go on-line?
>
>
yes. MirrorManager should already be working for these repos, I'll be
On Wed, 2010-02-17 at 10:34 +0100, Michal Schmidt wrote:
> Would it help to use a special Koji tag for this?
> Let's say you'd get a tag 'dist-f13-xfce48' where all packages built
> there would be immediately available for building dependend packages.
> And then when you're done, you'd ask rel-eng
On Wed, 2010-02-17 at 10:04 +0100, Christoph Wickert wrote:
> How do we address this issue?
The same way we address it for updates to a stable Fedora.
Release Engineering is an open group, if there are significant delays in
getting tagging done we can certainly try to get more taggers into the
gr
On Wed, 2010-02-17 at 08:26 +, Frank Murphy wrote:
>
> When will there be a "branched.repo" config for testers.
> So they won't be getting "rawhide.repo".
> It that's what they want\need.
The branched repo config is the fedora.repo file. Mirrormanager will be
making sure that goes to the ri
On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 02:23:22PM +0100, Christoph Wickert wrote:
> Both approaches have their ups and downs, but both slow down
> development:
> * Asking rel-eng for overwrites takes time.
> * Asking rel-eng for a tag takes some time too. And I'm afraid
> that with an inflati
Am Mittwoch, den 17.02.2010, 12:18 +0100 schrieb Till Maas:
> On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 10:44:10AM +0100, Christoph Wickert wrote:
>
> > And what about the updates that don't have a custom tag?
>
> If the update is big enough, that a lot of packages require a rebuild,
> using a custom tag seems to
On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 10:44:10AM +0100, Christoph Wickert wrote:
> And what about the updates that don't have a custom tag?
If the update is big enough, that a lot of packages require a rebuild,
using a custom tag seems to be the best approach, so if there is none,
ask of it. If there is no nee
Am Mittwoch, den 17.02.2010, 10:34 +0100 schrieb Michal Schmidt:
> On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 10:04:13 +0100 Christoph Wickert wrote:
> > This means that chainbuilds are no longer possible and this slows
> > development down dramatically. Think of a feature like Xfce 4.8 with
> > it's tight schedule [1].
On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 10:04:13 +0100 Christoph Wickert wrote:
> This means that chainbuilds are no longer possible and this slows
> development down dramatically. Think of a feature like Xfce 4.8 with
> it's tight schedule [1]. E.g. we only have 8 days to build one of the
> pre-releases.
>
> When I
Am Dienstag, den 16.02.2010, 20:31 -0800 schrieb Jesse Keating:
>
> static-repos will act as it normally does for a released Fedora. The
> repo seen is what is in the buildroot, which is what is tagged for
> release, and anything we've tagged "override" to make it available in
> the buildroot for
On 17/02/10 04:31, Jesse Keating wrote:
--snipped--
>>
>
> There will be a Rawhide Report and a Branched Report. Rawhide will be
> F-14 now, Branched is F-13. There will also be Fedora 13 Updates
> Testing announcements over on the test list.
>
>
>
When will there be a "branched.repo" config for
On 02/17/2010 05:10 AM, Jesse Keating wrote:
> That's right folks, we are now branched for Fedora 13. What does this
> mean to you? Well that depends on who "you" are, here are some "you"s
> that we wrote about:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/No_frozen_rawhide_announce_plan#Use_Cases
>
> The re
On Wed, 2010-02-17 at 13:27 +0900, Mamoru Tasaka wrote:
>
> A. How does this affect http://koji.fedoraproject.org/static-repos/ ?
static-repos will act as it normally does for a released Fedora. The
repo seen is what is in the buildroot, which is what is tagged for
release, and anything we've ta
Jesse Keating wrote, at 02/17/2010 01:10 PM +9:00:
> That's right folks, we are now branched for Fedora 13. What does this
> mean to you? Well that depends on who "you" are, here are some "you"s
> that we wrote about:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/No_frozen_rawhide_announce_plan#Use_Cases
>Fr
That's right folks, we are now branched for Fedora 13. What does this
mean to you? Well that depends on who "you" are, here are some "you"s
that we wrote about:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/No_frozen_rawhide_announce_plan#Use_Cases
The real take away here is explained at
https://fedoraproject.
60 matches
Mail list logo
