On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 01:18:54AM -0500, Genes MailLists wrote:
> On 11/25/2010 01:13 AM, Genes MailLists wrote:
> > http://oswatershed.org/
>
> Hmm some interesting data there and some looks wrong to me:
>
> I see openssh at 5.5p1 not 5.0p1. but some like apache ours is lagging
> by quite a
On 11/25/2010 01:13 AM, Genes MailLists wrote:
> On 11/22/2010 01:23 PM, Genes MailLists wrote:
>> On 11/22/2010 09:44 AM, Genes MailLists wrote:
>>
>> ... rolling releases ...
>
>
>
> Interesting website - may be useful in thinking about the release
> cycle ... or not :-)
>
> http://oswate
On 11/22/2010 01:23 PM, Genes MailLists wrote:
> On 11/22/2010 09:44 AM, Genes MailLists wrote:
>
> ... rolling releases ...
Interesting website - may be useful in thinking about the release
cycle ... or not :-)
http://oswatershed.org/
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
h
On 11/22/2010 09:44 AM, Genes MailLists wrote:
> On 11/22/2010 04:21 AM, Hans de Goede wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 11/22/2010 12:59 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
>
>
>>> It seems like what you want is actually not to have three releases at a
>>> time at all but to have one and update it constantly. And I
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 12:39, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On 11/22/2010 11:18 AM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
>> They said that they install a Fedora for testing
>> purposes when it first comes out and enjoy the rapid pace of bugfixes as
>> they test the software in their environment. Then, the update pac
On 11/23/10 12:16 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 11:39:02AM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
>> On 11/22/2010 11:18 AM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
>>> They said that they install a Fedora for testing
>>> purposes when it first comes out and enjoy the rapid pace of bugfixes as
>>> they
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 11:39:02AM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On 11/22/2010 11:18 AM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> > They said that they install a Fedora for testing
> > purposes when it first comes out and enjoy the rapid pace of bugfixes as
> > they test the software in their environment. Then, t
On Tue, 2010-11-23 at 18:32 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> >> Note that Fedora #-2 does not fit into this view for things at all,
> >> Fedora #-2 is meant to allow people to skip a Fedora release. But in
> >> practice I think this works out badly, because a relatively new Fedora
> >> release like Fe
Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-11-22 at 10:21 +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
>> So taking for example the much much discussed KDE rebases. I think that
>> doing a KDE rebase for Fedora #+1 is a no brainer, for Fedora # is fine
>> as long as it is properly tested and for Fedora #-1 KDE should N
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 8:15 PM, mike cloaked wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 6:59 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
>
>>> Good point ... was thinking it was a way to ensure anaconda keeps
>>> pace but you're right ... it should follow the actual changes ...
>>>
>>> Do you have any suggestions ho
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 6:59 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
>> Good point ... was thinking it was a way to ensure anaconda keeps
>> pace but you're right ... it should follow the actual changes ...
>>
>> Do you have any suggestions how to manage ensuring that each ISO
>> snapshot has a working
On 11/22/2010 11:18 AM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> They said that they install a Fedora for testing
> purposes when it first comes out and enjoy the rapid pace of bugfixes as
> they test the software in their environment. Then, the update pace slows
> down at about the same time their ready to push
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 08:18:04AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-11-22 at 10:21 +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
>
> > The way I see it, is we have:
> >
> > rawhide (and for a part of the cycle Fedora #+1 testing)
> > Fedora #
> > Fedora #-1
> > Fedora #-2
> >
> > Fedora #+1 is for peo
On 11/22/2010 01:59 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
>>Do you have any suggestions how to manage ensuring that each ISO
>> snapshot has a working anaconda ?
>
> This is the kind of thing automated testing would help a lot with; we
> already have some automated testing of anaconda in place, but it do
On Mon, 2010-11-22 at 13:47 -0500, Genes MailLists wrote:
> On 11/22/2010 01:35 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Mon, 2010-11-22 at 13:23 -0500, Genes MailLists wrote:
> >
> >>* A major version should be imposed every 6 months if it
> >> has not for some reason.
> >
> >
On 11/22/2010 01:35 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-11-22 at 13:23 -0500, Genes MailLists wrote:
>
>>* A major version should be imposed every 6 months if it
>> has not for some reason.
>
> Why? Your idea of tying version bumps to actual changes in the product
>
On Mon, 2010-11-22 at 13:23 -0500, Genes MailLists wrote:
>* A major version should be imposed every 6 months if it
> has not for some reason.
Why? Your idea of tying version bumps to actual changes in the product
rather than an arbitrary timeline is an interesting one, b
On 11/22/2010 09:44 AM, Genes MailLists wrote:
> repo.
>
> * Whenever we move a bunch of packages from staging to
> stable we raise the minor number to M.(n+1). Larger
> changes may require major number bump if deemed
> appropriate (e.g
On Mon, 2010-11-22 at 10:21 +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
> The way I see it, is we have:
>
> rawhide (and for a part of the cycle Fedora #+1 testing)
> Fedora #
> Fedora #-1
> Fedora #-2
>
> Fedora #+1 is for people who want the bleeding edge
> Fedora # is for people who want the latest and gre
On 11/22/2010 04:21 AM, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 11/22/2010 12:59 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
>> It seems like what you want is actually not to have three releases at a
>> time at all but to have one and update it constantly. And I actually
>> rather suspect that would be a model that wo
Hi,
On 11/22/2010 12:59 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Sun, 2010-11-21 at 23:04 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>
>> In short: Want higher-quality updates for previous releases? Then push
>> version upgrades wherever possible (even and especially for libraries, as
>> long as they're ABI-compatible or
21 matches
Mail list logo
