Oscar Bacho wrote:
> There is one "good" update of gstreamer with include gstreamer-bad-free.
>
> And it has file conflict with gstreamer-bad of rpm-fusion and with
> gstreamer-good
>
> It seem to me that fedora needs a stable update policy.
You just need to update gstreamer-plugins-bad from RPM
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> Updates policy won't necessarily help in this case. AutoQA might but
> then cross repo coordination is at times tricky esp with much less
> people taking care of administration of third party repos.
There's no problem to fix here at all. An updated gstreamer-plugins-bad is
Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> whether it was that Fast, Slow, or Cowboy Bob
You mean CowboyNeal! ;-)
Kevin Kofler
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On 03/16/2010 11:54 AM, Oscar Bacho wrote:
>
>
> 2010/3/16 Oscar Bacho mailto:ob.sys...@gmail.com>>
>
> There is one "good" update of gstreamer with include
> gstreamer-bad-free.
>
> And it has file conflict with gstreamer-bad of rpm-fusion and with
> gstreamer-good
>
> It seem
2010/3/16 Oscar Bacho
> There is one "good" update of gstreamer with include gstreamer-bad-free.
>
> And it has file conflict with gstreamer-bad of rpm-fusion and with
> gstreamer-good
>
> It seem to me that fedora needs a stable update policy.
>
>
> Go ahead Jesse
>
>
> Oscar Bacho
>
> P.D. I'm
There is one "good" update of gstreamer with include gstreamer-bad-free.
And it has file conflict with gstreamer-bad of rpm-fusion and with
gstreamer-good
It seem to me that fedora needs a stable update policy.
Go ahead Jesse
Oscar Bacho
P.D. I'm a user
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fed
On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 2:27 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Sun, 2010-03-14 at 21:23 -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
>>
>> If we assumed that the people who had been registered in FAS for over
>> 6 months and had signed the CLA met the first two definitions, you
>> would need to randomly select
On Sun, 2010-03-14 at 21:23 -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
>
> If we assumed that the people who had been registered in FAS for over
> 6 months and had signed the CLA met the first two definitions, you
> would need to randomly select about 3000 of them and have at least 600
> answer the poll t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am 15.03.2010 18:15, schrieb Rahul Sundaram:
>
> You did read it incorrectly. Splitting up the update stream doesn't
> involve going back to core+extras at all. KDE has a additional repo
> already in kde-redhat.sf.net where they have first builds be
Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
>> Here is where we have a definition problem. To me, unbaked stuff is
>> things that haven't had a good month of testing if its a large change
>> (a couple of days if its a small one).
>
> If you count all the testing done on prereleases, KDE 4.4.0
On 03/15/2010 10:37 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 03/15/2010 05:36 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>
>
>> Progressive and aggressive is all fine as part of development branches
>> as far as I am concerned. Several other distributions take care of this
>> disjoint nature by splitting up the repositor
On 03/15/2010 05:36 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> Progressive and aggressive is all fine as part of development branches
> as far as I am concerned. Several other distributions take care of this
> disjoint nature by splitting up the repository and having two different
> update streams. With a smal
On 03/15/2010 09:43 PM, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
> Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>
>> How many contributors are interested in only serving themselves? Is that
>> what we want to encourage?
>>
> I'm going to hazard a guess and say "all of them". It's basic
> psychology; people don't do things that ha
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> How many contributors are interested in only serving themselves? Is that
> what we want to encourage?
I'm going to hazard a guess and say "all of them". It's basic
psychology; people don't do things that have no (perceived) benefit to
them. At most ephemeral, that benefit
On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 12:54 PM, Matěj Cepl wrote:
> Dne 14.3.2010 19:29, Kevin Kofler napsal(a):
>> Nonsense. There ARE users who want this kind of updates. Please don't
>> generalize your own opinion to ALL users in that way. "no" is a strong word!
>
> And yes, these are users who have subscrib
Dne 14.3.2010 09:59, Jon Masters napsal(a):
> Somewhat shockingly, some people do use Fedora for day to day stuff.
Don't worry they will stop soon. After all (quoting one post which I am
sorry got burried somewhere down the thread leaves):
$ Contributors are what makes Fedora grow and advance as
On 03/15/2010 12:54 PM, Matěj Cepl wrote:
> Dne 14.3.2010 19:29, Kevin Kofler napsal(a):
>> Nonsense. There ARE users who want this kind of updates. Please don't
>> generalize your own opinion to ALL users in that way. "no" is a strong word!
>
> And yes, these are users who have subscribed to updat
Dne 15.3.2010 01:59, Kevin Kofler napsal(a):
> Where's the evidence for that? I haven't noticed anything like that at all!
Isn't it because KDE was always pushing huge amounts of updates, so
there is no change for you? Just asking ...
I (and especially my wife who started to bitterly copmlain ab
Dne 14.3.2010 19:29, Kevin Kofler napsal(a):
> Nonsense. There ARE users who want this kind of updates. Please don't
> generalize your own opinion to ALL users in that way. "no" is a strong word!
And yes, these are users who have subscribed to updates-testing. My wife
bitterly complains about the
On 3/14/2010 8:14 PM, Rex Dieter wrote:
> Peter Hutterer wrote:
>
>
>> On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 09:14:48PM -0700, Orion Poplawski wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, March 13, 2010 4:58 pm, Peter Hutterer wrote:
>>>
Isn't there a mere RISK to lose 70-80% of our users if we do _not_
imp
On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 19:33:30 +0100,
Mathieu Bridon wrote:
>
> Once every months, I install Fedora on some users system (recurring
> release party the first saturday of each months) using the liveCD so I
> can teach them how to do it themselves. After the install is finished,
> we don't have
On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 09:14:06PM -0500, Rex Dieter wrote:
> Peter Hutterer wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 09:14:48PM -0700, Orion Poplawski wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sat, March 13, 2010 4:58 pm, Peter Hutterer wrote:
> >> > Isn't there a mere RISK to lose 70-80% of our users if we do _not_
> >>
On 03/15/2010 01:40 AM, Simo Sorce wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 19:07:53 +0100
> Kevin Kofler wrote:
>
>> Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>>
>>> On 03/14/2010 10:13 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Not a very credible one, given that those users are happily using
Fedora as it is now!
>>>
>>> Can we drop th
On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 8:14 PM, Rex Dieter wrote:
> Peter Hutterer wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 09:14:48PM -0700, Orion Poplawski wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sat, March 13, 2010 4:58 pm, Peter Hutterer wrote:
>>> > Isn't there a mere RISK to lose 70-80% of our users if we do _not_
>>> > implement
>>
Peter Hutterer wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 09:14:48PM -0700, Orion Poplawski wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, March 13, 2010 4:58 pm, Peter Hutterer wrote:
>> > Isn't there a mere RISK to lose 70-80% of our users if we do _not_
>> > implement
>> > the changes as well? Especially given the chance that th
On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 09:14:48PM -0700, Orion Poplawski wrote:
>
> On Sat, March 13, 2010 4:58 pm, Peter Hutterer wrote:
> > Isn't there a mere RISK to lose 70-80% of our users if we do _not_
> > implement
> > the changes as well? Especially given the chance that the poll did not
> > represent a
Simo Sorce wrote:
> Because the situation worsened dramatically recently.
Where's the evidence for that? I haven't noticed anything like that at all!
You (and others defending the same or a similar viewpoint) are quick to
point out the lack of statistical rigor in Adam Williamson's poll, but whe
On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 19:07:53 +0100
Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>
> > On 03/14/2010 10:13 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> >> Not a very credible one, given that those users are happily using
> >> Fedora as it is now!
> >
> > Can we drop the absolutes which are clearly not true? Some us
Orion Poplawski wrote:
> On 3/14/2010 10:50 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
>>
>>> So the right solution is to let you do your own disruptive changes in
>>> stable so you don't have to deal with other people disruptive changes in
>>> rawhide?
>>>
>> "My" changes, or rea
On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 07:07:53PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>
> > On 03/14/2010 10:13 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> >> Not a very credible one, given that those users are happily using Fedora
> >> as it is now!
> >
> > Can we drop the absolutes which are clearly not true? So
Am Sonntag, den 14.03.2010, 19:33 +0100 schrieb Mathieu Bridon:
> Some others arrive and say hi, their first update (the 300MB one you
> get when installing 2 months after release) breaks something, they
> leave (some will not even finish downloading such a huge amount and
> leave).
>
> Finally, e
On 3/14/2010 10:50 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
>
>> So the right solution is to let you do your own disruptive changes in
>> stable so you don't have to deal with other people disruptive changes in
>> rawhide?
>>
> "My" changes, or really KDE SIG's changes, are NOT di
On Sun, 2010-03-14 at 20:21 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Jon Masters wrote:
> > If you would confine your concerns to KDE, which it sounds is all you
> > are really worried about, then let's give KDE a giant exemption for KDE
> > updates if the rest of the distribution could benefit from less churn
On 03/15/2010 12:19 AM, Rex Dieter wrote:
> Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>
>
>
>> You cut off the portion where I already explained why such a policy is
>> inherently self defeating at large.
>>
> OK, fair enough, you made that case sure. It's just that I don't agree with
> that generalization
Jon Masters wrote:
> If you would confine your concerns to KDE, which it sounds is all you
> are really worried about, then let's give KDE a giant exemption for KDE
> updates if the rest of the distribution could benefit from less churn.
It's not just about KDE. It's also about the kernel, about a
On Sun, 2010-03-14 at 18:17 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Jon Masters wrote:
> > If the only reason to choose Fedora over Ubuntu is because Fedora shoves
> > out updates at a higher pace into stable releases, then something is
> > severely wrong.
>
> Why? It's exactly what's happening out there in
On Sun, 14 Mar 2010, Rex Dieter wrote:
> Mike McGrath wrote:
>
> > My last KDE update was disruptive as I mentioned earlier, in addition
> > though now my taskbar is freezing even after blowing my .kde dir away.
> > BZ on it's way soon as I can get some logs to send with it.
>
> If you don't see t
Mike McGrath wrote:
> My last KDE update was disruptive as I mentioned earlier, in addition
> though now my taskbar is freezing even after blowing my .kde dir away.
> BZ on it's way soon as I can get some logs to send with it.
If you don't see the problem(s) with the conclusions you're trying to
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> You cut off the portion where I already explained why such a policy is
> inherently self defeating at large.
OK, fair enough, you made that case sure. It's just that I don't agree with
that generalization much (or generalizations in general, heh).
I'm hopeful that th
Jon Masters wrote:
> I don't need to conduct extensive surveys to understand that no user is
> desperate to have the number of updates that are going out these days.
Nonsense. There ARE users who want this kind of updates. Please don't
generalize your own opinion to ALL users in that way. "no" is
On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 19:07, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>
>> On 03/14/2010 10:13 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>>> Not a very credible one, given that those users are happily using Fedora
>>> as it is now!
>>
>> Can we drop the absolutes which are clearly not true? Some users clearly
On Sun, 2010-03-14 at 19:07 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> > How many contributors are interested in only serving themselves? Is that
> > what we want to encourage?
>
> Contributors are what makes Fedora grow and advance as a project. Users are
> only benefitting from our (t
Simo Sorce wrote:
> Same here, and it is a pity, up to F-10 the number of updates was just
> fine, recently it has exploded to unsustainable levels for a *stable*
> release.
Huh? I didn't collect any stats on that, but I haven't noticed any
difference in that area between F-10 (or F-9) and now.
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> How many contributors are interested in only serving themselves? Is that
> what we want to encourage?
Contributors are what makes Fedora grow and advance as a project. Users are
only benefitting from our (the contributors') work as a side effect.
Kevin Kofler
--
Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> Kevin, I am only going to respond once because it is clear you don't
> really read, you just shoot from your hip and you have not a single
> iota of compromise.
Personal attacks…
> You just inferred a whole lot into my post. I never said anything
> about KDE in this
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 03/14/2010 10:13 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> Not a very credible one, given that those users are happily using Fedora
>> as it is now!
>
> Can we drop the absolutes which are clearly not true? Some users clearly
> are not.
Yet they haven't left over it. So why would tha
Frank Murphy wrote:
> Then why not change the way Fedora is presented in the release notes.
> (said in half jest yesterday, by myself)
> That to keep Fedora fully updated
> "A highspeed internet connection is recommended"
I've been recommending that all this time, I've been ignored. (In fact I
th
On Sun, 14 Mar 2010, Rex Dieter wrote:
> Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>
> > On 03/14/2010 10:20 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> >> Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> >>
> >>> So the right solution is to let you do your own disruptive changes in
> >>> stable so you don't have to deal with other people disruptive changes
On 03/14/2010 11:10 PM, Rex Dieter wrote:
> Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>
>
>> If Fedora is only usable for contributors and
>> contributors only,
>>
> It's called focus (where have I heard that?). Some people(1) want
> *contributors* to be focus is all.
>
How many contributors are interes
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 03/14/2010 10:20 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
>>
>>> So the right solution is to let you do your own disruptive changes in
>>> stable so you don't have to deal with other people disruptive changes in
>>> rawhide?
>>>
>> "My" changes, or reall
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> If Fedora is only usable for contributors and
> contributors only,
It's called focus (where have I heard that?). Some people(1) want
*contributors* to be focus is all.
-- Rex
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/
Jon Masters wrote:
> If the only reason to choose Fedora over Ubuntu is because Fedora shoves
> out updates at a higher pace into stable releases, then something is
> severely wrong.
Why? It's exactly what's happening out there in the real world you chose to
ignore, yet I don't see anything wrong
On 03/14/2010 10:20 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
>
>> So the right solution is to let you do your own disruptive changes in
>> stable so you don't have to deal with other people disruptive changes in
>> rawhide?
>>
> "My" changes, or really KDE SIG's changes, are NOT dis
Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> So the right solution is to let you do your own disruptive changes in
> stable so you don't have to deal with other people disruptive changes in
> rawhide?
"My" changes, or really KDE SIG's changes, are NOT disruptive. They're minor
feature releases which are backwards co
On 03/14/2010 10:13 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Peter Hutterer wrote:
>
>> Isn't there a mere RISK to lose 70-80% of our users if we do _not_
>> implement the changes as well? Especially given the chance that the poll
>> did not represent a significant user sample?
>>
> Not a very credible on
Peter Hutterer wrote:
> Isn't there a mere RISK to lose 70-80% of our users if we do _not_
> implement the changes as well? Especially given the chance that the poll
> did not represent a significant user sample?
Not a very credible one, given that those users are happily using Fedora as
it is no
On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 9:59 AM, Jon Masters wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-03-13 at 21:48 +0100, Thomas Janssen wrote:
>
>> Why, do you think, should just a single user change to Fedora, away
>> from Ubuntu or any other Distro? Because we're blue?
>
> If the only reason to choose Fedora over Ubuntu is bec
On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 9:59 AM, Jon Masters wrote:
>> the same just in RPM? Some "slow-it-down-people" do really think that
>> a half baken X-server 1.7beta will make users of other distros go away
>> because they use just 1.6, or our release kernel is 2.6.31.3 and
>> others have 2.6.31.1 trough
On Sat, 2010-03-13 at 21:48 +0100, Thomas Janssen wrote:
> Why, do you think, should just a single user change to Fedora, away
> from Ubuntu or any other Distro? Because we're blue?
If the only reason to choose Fedora over Ubuntu is because Fedora shoves
out updates at a higher pace into stable r
On 03/13/2010 03:24 AM, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
> Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>
>>
>> So now users who don't contribute are leeches? Wow. Just wow. Without
>> users, contributors wouldn't have much of a motivation to contribute.
>>
> Yes.
>
> Interesting how you define users as people that give
On Sat, March 13, 2010 4:58 pm, Peter Hutterer wrote:
> Isn't there a mere RISK to lose 70-80% of our users if we do _not_
> implement
> the changes as well? Especially given the chance that the poll did not
> represent a significant user sample?
How many users do we need?
--
Orion Poplawski
Te
On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 03:20:02AM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Chris Adams wrote:
> > Right after you _prove_ that this IS the case. How quick would you be
> > to reject that poll as unscientific and meaningless if it didn't go your
> > way? I thought it was a bad idea and didn't even take a loo
On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 8:55 AM, Frank Murphy wrote:
> On 12/03/10 19:27, Adam Williamson wrote:
> --snipped--
>>>
>>> Bringing it back to dialup.
>>> Fedora liveCD 500-700mb
>>> CentOS DVD 3.5GB app.
>>> Fedora 1, CentOS 0
>>
>> In my experience, many users with restricted bandwidth actually pref
On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 1:02 AM, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-03-13 at 00:52 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> Jesse Keating wrote:
>> > Fundamental point of view difference. You take the point of view of
>> > push everything all the time /unless/ there is a good enough reason not
>> > to.
>>
On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 9:15 PM, Thomas Janssen
wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 12:18 AM, Jesse Keating wrote:
>> On Fri, 2010-03-12 at 16:05 -0600, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
>>>
>>> I'd expect people that want 100% Free to use gNewSense. I'm not sure how
>>> you define "more ammeniable to new cont
On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 12:18 AM, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-03-12 at 16:05 -0600, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
>>
>> I'd expect people that want 100% Free to use gNewSense. I'm not sure how
>> you define "more ammeniable to new contributors", so that's harder to
>> address. Still, I think it's
On Friday 12 March 2010 04:54:43 pm Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-03-12 at 14:56 +0100, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
> > How does this proposal go with upgrades? I think stable updates +
> > upgrades are tight together. Are we going to be more conservative in new
> > releases too? Extend "stable" r
On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 09:27:00 -0500
Jon Masters wrote:
> Dealing with the number of Fedora updates getting shoved out to
> unsuspecting users is a bigger pain. I don't even bother to update my
> system daily now because I know I may need to schedule some time to
> fix something when I do upgrade.
On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 1:45 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-03-12 at 21:43 -0700, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
>
>> Neither can be done without an outside/neutral polling agency
>> contacting and getting responses from at least 600-3000 random Fedora
>> users. The poll that was given was
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 10:44 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
>> Here is where we have a definition problem. To me, unbaked stuff is
>> things that haven't had a good month of testing if its a large change
>> (a couple of days if its a small one).
>
> If you count all the tes
On Fri, 2010-03-12 at 19:56 -0600, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
> Jon Masters wrote:
> > And prove your point that users are desperate for intrusive
> > rolling updates and won't just use Rawhide instead if they want to get
> > the very latest and greatest unbaked stuff.
>
> First off: I'm not asking f
On 03/13/10 11:46, Somebody in the thread at some point said:
> On 03/13/2010 11:52 AM, Ville-Pekka Vainio wrote:
>> pe, 2010-03-12 kello 15:20 -0800, Jesse Keating kirjoitti:
>
>> As Fedora is the distribution I'm most familiar with, I've also
>> installed it on some of my family members' systems
Le 13/03/2010 12:46, Ralf Corsepius a écrit :
> You actually want a different distribution, likely a Fedora LTS, not
> current Fedora.
>
> Unfortunately, Fedora's leadership repeatedly had brushed off a Fedora
> LTS as "unmaintainable" and redirected people to CentOS.
>
> Ralf
Our primary miss
On 03/13/2010 11:52 AM, Ville-Pekka Vainio wrote:
> pe, 2010-03-12 kello 15:20 -0800, Jesse Keating kirjoitti:
> As Fedora is the distribution I'm most familiar with, I've also
> installed it on some of my family members' systems but lately I've been
> considering switching those to Ubuntu once th
pe, 2010-03-12 kello 15:20 -0800, Jesse Keating kirjoitti:
> Keeping that cutting-edge release practice, but adding to that stability
> once released would indeed be a very unique and desirable niche for
> Fedora to fill.
I've avoided participating in these threads, since I don't really want
to fe
On 03/12/2010 05:07 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 03/12/2010 08:46 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>>
>>> This is extremely poor attitude Kevin and reeks of arrogance. Talking
>>> down on users and contributors who don't have the privilege of high
>>> bandwidth connections isn't what I expected from yo
On 13 March 2010 01:46, Chris Adams wrote:
> Kevin, you are continually talking as if you represent a vast majority
> of all Fedora users and the Fedora project itself. You say "we" do
> something, when you really mean "the KDE SIG". Please stop trying to
> speak for everybody else.
FWIW, not e
On 03/13/2010 09:54 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-03-13 at 07:05 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>
>> As usual, a pragmatical solution/compromise would be inbetween.
>
> This is the fallacy of the middle way. it's simply not always true.
I disagree: fanatical radicalism is naive and will a
Le samedi 13 mars 2010 à 06:50 +0100, Kevin Kofler a écrit :
> Rawhide is not the answer. It comes with disruptive changes (and there's no
> real way to avoid this problem,
So the right solution is to let you do your own disruptive changes in
stable so you don't have to deal with other people di
On Sat, 2010-03-13 at 07:05 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> As usual, a pragmatical solution/compromise would be inbetween.
This is the fallacy of the middle way. it's simply not always true. If I
say I'd like to steal $100 from you, and you'd prefer me not to steal
any of your money, is the 'obvi
On Sat, 2010-03-13 at 07:55 +, Frank Murphy wrote:
> Then why not change the way Fedora is presented in the release notes.
> (said in half jest yesterday, by myself)
> That to keep Fedora fully updated
> "A highspeed internet connection is recommended"
>
>
> No, I'm not trying to help create
On Fri, 2010-03-12 at 21:43 -0700, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> Neither can be done without an outside/neutral polling agency
> contacting and getting responses from at least 600-3000 random Fedora
> users. The poll that was given was one that could be easily stuffed
> and not easily proven that
On 12/03/10 19:27, Adam Williamson wrote:
--snipped--
>>
>> Bringing it back to dialup.
>> Fedora liveCD 500-700mb
>> CentOS DVD 3.5GB app.
>> Fedora 1, CentOS 0
>
> In my experience, many users with restricted bandwidth actually prefer a
> *larger* install image, as then they at least have a datab
On 03/13/2010 12:22 AM, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-03-12 at 22:06 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> I think that new versions should, as a general rule, be pushed, unless there
>> is a good reason NOT to push a particular new version (feature regressions,
>> known unfixed new bugs as found dur
Matthew Miller wrote:
> What's the problem, exactly, here? I've been running Rawhide on my desktop
> at home and work for a couple of years now with no serious complaints.
Oh no, not again! This has already been explained several times!
== begin paste ==
Rawhide is not the answer. It comes with d
Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> Here is where we have a definition problem. To me, unbaked stuff is
> things that haven't had a good month of testing if its a large change
> (a couple of days if its a small one).
If you count all the testing done on prereleases, KDE 4.4.0 actually had
much MORE tha
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 6:56 PM, Matthew Woehlke
wrote:
> Jon Masters wrote:
>> On Sat, 2010-03-13 at 01:09 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>>> Jesse Keating wrote:
Then in my opinion those users, and those maintainers who wish to cater
to those users, can go start their own project.
>>>
>>>
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 04:05:38PM -0600, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
> Anyone know of a distro that doesn't lag like Ubuntu/NewFedora? Is
> Mandrake kept up to date, or do they also make you wait months for new
> versions? Because I am *seriously* considering switching right now...
[...]
> Please. "R
Matthew Woehlke wrote:
> Anyone know of a distro that doesn't lag like Ubuntu/NewFedora? Is
> Mandrake kept up to date, or do they also make you wait months for new
> versions? Because I am *seriously* considering switching right now...
Arch?
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
I like fedora beacause it is both up to date and stable.
I also am admin for a several non tech users - and frankly if there is
an Aunt Tilly out there using fedora she never installed it - one of us
did - and we maintain it - and we speak for Aunt Tilly.
And if you ask Aunt Tilly - certai
Chris Adams wrote:
> Right after you _prove_ that this IS the case. How quick would you be
> to reject that poll as unscientific and meaningless if it didn't go your
> way? I thought it was a bad idea and didn't even take a look. How
> widespread was the poll among regular users (not developers)
Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-03-13 at 01:14 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> [...]
>
> There is clearly no reason to continue this conversation with you Kevin.
> We are just going to disagree.
That's what's really sad to me. Despite that the only "hard" evidence we
have seems to agree with wh
Jon Masters wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-03-13 at 01:09 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> Jesse Keating wrote:
>> > Then in my opinion those users, and those maintainers who wish to cater
>> > to those users, can go start their own project.
>>
>> Even if those users are 70+% of the current Fedora users?
>
Jon Masters wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-03-13 at 01:09 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> Jesse Keating wrote:
>>> Then in my opinion those users, and those maintainers who wish to cater
>>> to those users, can go start their own project.
>>
>> Even if those users are 70+% of the current Fedora users?
>
> Pro
Once upon a time, Peter Boy said:
> Am Freitag, den 12.03.2010, 15:31 -0600 schrieb Matthew Woehlke:
> > Thomas Janssen wrote:
> > > I have read all this mega-threads and i haven't found just a single
> > > argument why it's good for Fedora to change away from what we are.
> >
> > +10 to that!
>
Once upon a time, Kevin Kofler said:
> Jesse Keating wrote:
> > Then in my opinion those users, and those maintainers who wish to cater
> > to those users, can go start their own project.
>
> Even if those users are 70+% of the current Fedora users? That's quite
> plausible given the results of
Am Freitag, den 12.03.2010, 15:31 -0600 schrieb Matthew Woehlke:
> Thomas Janssen wrote:
> > I have read all this mega-threads and i haven't found just a single
> > argument why it's good for Fedora to change away from what we are.
>
> +10 to that!
Indeed!!
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.
On Sat, 2010-03-13 at 01:14 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Jesse Keating wrote:
> > While it's true that some of our users appreciate the rapid stream of
> > updates, we may have to lose those users, or redirect them to other
> > avenues to rapid updates within the Fedora project and release stream.
Friday, March 12, 2010, 7:09:02 PM, Kevin wrote:
> Jesse Keating wrote:
>> Then in my opinion those users, and those maintainers who wish to cater
>> to those users, can go start their own project.
> Even if those users are 70+% of the current Fedora users? That's quite
> plausible given the resu
On Sat, 2010-03-13 at 01:09 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Jesse Keating wrote:
> > Then in my opinion those users, and those maintainers who wish to cater
> > to those users, can go start their own project.
>
> Even if those users are 70+% of the current Fedora users?
Prove it. And prove your poin
1 - 100 of 251 matches
Mail list logo
