On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 10:04 AM, Kalev Lember wrote:
> On 09/02/2013 05:44 PM, Kalev Lember wrote:
>> The GNOME 3.9.91 release is coming as well, with a bit unfortunate
>> timing wrt. Fedora freezes. In any case, we'll handle the GNOME 3.9.91
>> builds together and file them as a single megaupdate
On 6 September 2013 03:27, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> +1, I don't see why Fedora should (keep) follow(ing) the GNOME schedule as
> opposed to anybody else's, or simply whenever the 6 months from the previous
> release happen to be over.
The default Fedora desktop is GNOME. Most of the Red Hat desktop
Reindl Harald wrote:
> and *what* exactly makes GNOME special that Fedora releases
> have to follow it?
>
> frankly there are *a lot* of users who don't give a damn about GNOME at
> all and release Fedora with pressure because GNOME is ready and accept
> breakage on other components (other desktop
On Mon, 02 Sep, 2013 at 15:44:46 GMT, Kalev Lember wrote:
> There's a separate koji build target for the 3.9.91 builds and the
> magical invocation is 'fedpkg build --target f20-gnome'. We're also
> going to use the same spreadsheet system as previously, so if you want
> builds to be included in th
On 09/02/2013 05:44 PM, Kalev Lember wrote:
> The GNOME 3.9.91 release is coming as well, with a bit unfortunate
> timing wrt. Fedora freezes. In any case, we'll handle the GNOME 3.9.91
> builds together and file them as a single megaupdate in Bodhi.
GNOME 3.9.91 builds are now done and made it in
- Original Message -
> On Mon, Sep 02, 2013 at 05:44:46PM +0200, Kalev Lember wrote:
> > It's that time of the year again -- F20 is going into the Alpha freeze
> > tomorrow and new builds will have to go through Bodhi for verification.
> > The GNOME 3.9.91 release is coming as well, with a
Am 02.09.2013 22:27, schrieb Kalev Lember:
> On 09/02/2013 07:37 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
>> Could we have avoided this conflict by scheduling better in advance?
>
> We might have been able to do slightly better, because GNOME schedules
> are published in advance and set pretty much in stone. I
On 09/02/2013 07:37 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
> Could we have avoided this conflict by scheduling better in advance?
We might have been able to do slightly better, because GNOME schedules
are published in advance and set pretty much in stone. In the end, it's
hard to plan for this though because w
On 2 September 2013 11:37, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 02, 2013 at 05:44:46PM +0200, Kalev Lember wrote:
> > It's that time of the year again -- F20 is going into the Alpha freeze
> > tomorrow and new builds will have to go through Bodhi for verification.
> > The GNOME 3.9.91 release is c
On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 7:37 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 02, 2013 at 05:44:46PM +0200, Kalev Lember wrote:
>> It's that time of the year again -- F20 is going into the Alpha freeze
>> tomorrow and new builds will have to go through Bodhi for verification.
>> The GNOME 3.9.91 release is
On Mon, Sep 02, 2013 at 05:44:46PM +0200, Kalev Lember wrote:
> It's that time of the year again -- F20 is going into the Alpha freeze
> tomorrow and new builds will have to go through Bodhi for verification.
> The GNOME 3.9.91 release is coming as well, with a bit unfortunate
> timing wrt. Fedora
Hi all,
It's that time of the year again -- F20 is going into the Alpha freeze
tomorrow and new builds will have to go through Bodhi for verification.
The GNOME 3.9.91 release is coming as well, with a bit unfortunate
timing wrt. Fedora freezes. In any case, we'll handle the GNOME 3.9.91
builds t
12 matches
Mail list logo
