On 06/14/2012 04:54 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Felix Miata wrote:
>> Is "never" appropriate even if one's own experience is with 3 systems? 7
>> systems? 13 systems? 40 systems? Never say never, or always. ;-)
>
> That can widen the class of affected devices, but from there to "all Intel
> WiFi" i
Felix Miata wrote:
> Is "never" appropriate even if one's own experience is with 3 systems? 7
> systems? 13 systems? 40 systems? Never say never, or always. ;-)
That can widen the class of affected devices, but from there to "all Intel
WiFi" is still a long stretch. (For a starter, last I checked
Josh Boyer wrote:
> The person that submits the update gets emails for every comment added
> to the update. This particular one had a couple things that happened
> though.
>
> 1) It got the requisite karma for stable rather quickly
> 2) Justin was on vacation when the negative karma was submitted
Am Mittwoch, den 13.06.2012, 12:07 -0700 schrieb Adam Williamson:
> On Wed, 2012-06-13 at 09:36 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 9:24 AM, Roman Kennke wrote:
> > > Would it make sense to require more karma than just the default 3?
> > > Looking at:
> > >
> > > https://admin.fed
On Wed, 2012-06-13 at 09:36 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 9:24 AM, Roman Kennke wrote:
> > Would it make sense to require more karma than just the default 3?
> > Looking at:
> >
> > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-8824/kernel-3.4.0-1.fc17
> >
> > I see that
On Wed, 2012-06-13 at 14:33 -0400, Felix Miata wrote:
> On 2012/06/13 11:22 (GMT-0700) Adam Williamson composed:
>
> > Your own personal experience is _never_ sufficient grounds for
> > concluding that the bug you're experiencing affects a much broader class
> > of devices.
>
> Is "never" appropr
On 2012/06/13 11:22 (GMT-0700) Adam Williamson composed:
Your own personal experience is _never_ sufficient grounds for
concluding that the bug you're experiencing affects a much broader class
of devices.
Is "never" appropriate even if one's own experience is with 3 systems? 7
systems? 13 sys
On Wed, 2012-06-13 at 12:51 +0200, Roman Kennke wrote:
> I cannot believe that I am the only one
> on an Intel Wifi chip.
I haven't yet read the rest of the thread, but I just wanted to point
out this common fallacy. As a general rule, all $VENDOR_$DEVICETYPE
devices do not act the same. You cann
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 13:16:24 -0400,
Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
If we means all people subscribed to fedora-devel I think everyone should run with
updates-testing enabled. This definition of we is the people that make Fedora happen so
we should always test our stuff - non-stop. Regular u
- Original Message -
> From: "Ian Malone"
> To: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2012 7:27:03 PM
> Subject: Re: Important kernel update should not break stuff
>
> On 13 June 2012 13:31, Aleksandar
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 17:27:03 +0100,
Ian Malone wrote:
I get the need for people to volunteer and test and that's fine. But
the thing I can't square here is why then we aren't all on
updates-testing all the time? The kernel is one of the few packages
you can guarantee everyone is using. We
On 13 June 2012 13:31, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
> - Original Message -
>> From: "Roman Kennke"
>> To: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
>>
>> Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2012 3:15:14 PM
>> Subject: Re: Important kernel
On 06/13/2012 01:39 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
Yes, that is true. However it also speaks to the extremely small usage
of rawhide and the relative lack of variety in both test hardware and
setups. I have no magical solutions to those problems. We simply need
more people testing rawhide kernels in ge
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 8:53 AM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 14:49:25 +0200,
> Nikola Pajkovsky wrote:
>>
>>
>> imo, kernel maintainers should have released 3.3.8 or 3.4.1, not 3.4.0
>> for f17
>
>
> 3.4.2 is available, though the last I checked the build hadn't been pushed
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 9:24 AM, Roman Kennke wrote:
> Would it make sense to require more karma than just the default 3?
> Looking at:
>
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-8824/kernel-3.4.0-1.fc17
>
> I see that there are 5 oks and 2 denys, which actually point to bug
> reports
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 9:14 AM, M A Young wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Jun 2012, Nikola Pajkovsky wrote:
>
>> imo, kernel maintainers should have released 3.3.8 or 3.4.1, not 3.4.0
>> for f17
>
>
> I believe the 3.4.0 kernel package was effectively 3.4.1 anyway.
Yes, it was. Justin added the patches que
Am Mittwoch, den 13.06.2012, 14:29 +0200 schrieb Stijn Hoop:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, 13 Jun 2012 14:15:14 +0200
> Roman Kennke wrote:
> > Am Mittwoch, den 13.06.2012, 13:05 +0100 schrieb Johannes Lips:
> > > I think the reason for shipping the latest upstream kernel is based
> > > on the fact that back
On Wed, 13 Jun 2012, Nikola Pajkovsky wrote:
imo, kernel maintainers should have released 3.3.8 or 3.4.1, not 3.4.0
for f17
I believe the 3.4.0 kernel package was effectively 3.4.1 anyway.
Michael Young
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.or
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 14:49:25 +0200,
Nikola Pajkovsky wrote:
imo, kernel maintainers should have released 3.3.8 or 3.4.1, not 3.4.0
for f17
3.4.2 is available, though the last I checked the build hadn't been pushed
to testing. I don't know if that is an oversight or if they didn't feel
Roman Kennke writes:
> Am Mittwoch, den 13.06.2012, 13:05 +0100 schrieb Johannes Lips:
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 1:00 PM, Roman Kennke
>> wrote:
>> > Today something happened, that happens over and over again
>> with Fedora,
>> > and it makes me angry. I am runni
- Original Message -
> From: "Roman Kennke"
> To: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2012 3:15:14 PM
> Subject: Re: Important kernel update should not break stuff
>
> Am Mittwoch, den 13.0
On 13/06/12 13:15, Roman Kennke wrote:
Ok, fair enough. The question remains, how can we avoid such bad things
to happen in the future? Should I regularily try out kernel builds on
their way to stable, and object to their stable-release when I find a
problem? And how would I do that? (I.e. how
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 8:15 AM, Roman Kennke wrote:
>> I think the reason for shipping the latest upstream kernel is based on
>> the fact that backporting would be too much work.
>> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/KernelRebases
>> Gives a good overview and probably prevents us from repeating
>> arg
Hi,
On Wed, 13 Jun 2012 14:15:14 +0200
Roman Kennke wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, den 13.06.2012, 13:05 +0100 schrieb Johannes Lips:
> > I think the reason for shipping the latest upstream kernel is based
> > on the fact that backporting would be too much work.
> > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/KernelReb
Am Mittwoch, den 13.06.2012, 13:05 +0100 schrieb Johannes Lips:
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 1:00 PM, Roman Kennke
> wrote:
> > Today something happened, that happens over and over again
> with Fedora,
> > and it makes me angry. I am running Fedora 17, and so far it
>
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 1:00 PM, Roman Kennke wrote:
> > Today something happened, that happens over and over again with Fedora,
> > and it makes me angry. I am running Fedora 17, and so far it worked well
> > with the initial kernel 3.3.x (except that it would panic on shutdown...
> > but that w
> Today something happened, that happens over and over again with Fedora,
> and it makes me angry. I am running Fedora 17, and so far it worked well
> with the initial kernel 3.3.x (except that it would panic on shutdown...
> but that was not important to me, but still embarassing). Today I was
> n
Hi folks,
Today something happened, that happens over and over again with Fedora,
and it makes me angry. I am running Fedora 17, and so far it worked well
with the initial kernel 3.3.x (except that it would panic on shutdown...
but that was not important to me, but still embarassing). Today I was
28 matches
Mail list logo
