On Wed, 22 Jul 2015 07:33:21 -0400
Neal Gompa wrote:
> These issues were present *the very moment* I wrote the email,
> because I literally went to the Copr site and set up a project to
> verify the issues just before sending the email.
Can you file an infrastructure ticket and we can debug wh
On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 6:45 AM, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> Dne 21.7.2015 v 19:28 Neal Gompa napsal(a):
> >
> > Accessing the Copr site is as slow as trying to search our Bugzilla
> (which is very slow indeed). Opening up pages
> > describing Copr repos is slow too. I occasionally get browser time
Dne 21.7.2015 v 19:28 Neal Gompa napsal(a):
>
> Accessing the Copr site is as slow as trying to search our Bugzilla (which
> is very slow indeed). Opening up pages
> describing Copr repos is slow too. I occasionally get browser timeouts
> accessing Copr. As for builds, those seem to be
> okay,
On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 11:32 AM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Jul 2015 16:23:34 +0200
> Miroslav Suchý wrote:
>
> > Dne 21.7.2015 v 15:23 Neal Gompa napsal(a):
> > > It's extraordinarily slow right now, and builders don't have the
> > > level of availability needed to support it being part o
On Tue, 21 Jul 2015 16:23:34 +0200
Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> Dne 21.7.2015 v 15:23 Neal Gompa napsal(a):
> > It's extraordinarily slow right now, and builders don't have the
> > level of availability needed to support it being part of the review
> > process.
>
> While this was true in past, this c
Dne 21.7.2015 v 15:23 Neal Gompa napsal(a):
> It's extraordinarily slow right now, and builders don't have the level of
> availability needed to support it being part
> of the review process.
While this was true in past, this changed a lot in past two months.
Occasionally we have issues with PPC
Hi,
On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 6:14 PM, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> Dne 11.7.2015 v 23:38 Jonathan Underwood napsal(a):
> > Thoughts from the COPR folks?
>
> I like the idea of adding Copr as intermediate step for new contributors.
> Copr is outer ring of Fedora and it definitely
> make sense for newbi
On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 8:44 AM, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> Dne 11.7.2015 v 23:38 Jonathan Underwood napsal(a):
> > Thoughts from the COPR folks?
>
> I like the idea of adding Copr as intermediate step for new contributors.
> Copr is outer ring of Fedora and it definitely
> make sense for newbies to
Dne 11.7.2015 v 23:38 Jonathan Underwood napsal(a):
> Thoughts from the COPR folks?
I like the idea of adding Copr as intermediate step for new contributors. Copr
is outer ring of Fedora and it definitely
make sense for newbies to go from outer ring to ring0. Step by step.
Additionally we have i
On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 17:34:09 +1000, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> Don't underestimate the explanatory power of worked examples
-snip-
Don't underestimate them how? I fail to see what your response has to do
with the paragraph from my mail you've quoted.
Some of the current (and past) problems with the
Dne 17.7.2015 v 00:28 Mikolaj Izdebski napsal(a):
> On 07/16/2015 07:53 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
>> One thing which I find very annoying when creating new packages is the
>> need to use bare rpmbuild commands. I find the split between
>> ~/rpmbuild/{SPECS,SOURCES} anachronistic (*), a
On 17 July 2015 at 18:17, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> But else, I don't think this would improve the process for new contributors
> significantly. As one can see, the new contributors manage to submit packages
> into the queue, and they even point at koji test-builds. One problem is that
> a growing
On Thu, 16 Jul 2015 23:13:20 +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> So multiple people arrive at the similar workflow independently...
> I really think that something like this should be available
> out of the box for new fedora packagers. Probably as part of fedpkg,
> but can be somewhere el
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 12:28:04AM +0200, Mikolaj Izdebski wrote:
> On 07/16/2015 07:53 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> > One thing which I find very annoying when creating new packages is the
> > need to use bare rpmbuild commands. I find the split between
> > ~/rpmbuild/{SPECS,SOURCES} a
On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 02:12:37PM -0600, Orion Poplawski wrote:
> On 07/16/2015 12:37 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 12:14:17PM -0600, Orion Poplawski wrote:
> >> On 07/16/2015 11:53 AM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> >>> One thing which I find very annoyi
On 07/16/2015 07:53 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> One thing which I find very annoying when creating new packages is the
> need to use bare rpmbuild commands. I find the split between
> ~/rpmbuild/{SPECS,SOURCES} anachronistic (*), and much prefer the
> fedpkg / distgit approach of havin
On 07/16/2015 12:37 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 12:14:17PM -0600, Orion Poplawski wrote:
>> On 07/16/2015 11:53 AM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
>>> One thing which I find very annoying when creating new packages is the
>>> need to use bare rpmbuild comman
On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 12:14:17PM -0600, Orion Poplawski wrote:
> On 07/16/2015 11:53 AM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> > One thing which I find very annoying when creating new packages is the
> > need to use bare rpmbuild commands. I find the split between
> > ~/rpmbuild/{SPECS,SOURCES} an
On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 08:04:12PM +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Jul 2015 17:53:31 +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
>
> > One thing which I find very annoying when creating new packages is the
> > need to use bare rpmbuild commands. I find the split between
> > ~/rpmbuild/{S
On 07/16/2015 11:53 AM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> One thing which I find very annoying when creating new packages is the
> need to use bare rpmbuild commands. I find the split between
> ~/rpmbuild/{SPECS,SOURCES} anachronistic (*), and much prefer the
> fedpkg / distgit approach of havin
On Thu, 16 Jul 2015 17:53:31 +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> One thing which I find very annoying when creating new packages is the
> need to use bare rpmbuild commands. I find the split between
> ~/rpmbuild/{SPECS,SOURCES} anachronistic (*), and much prefer the
> fedpkg / distgit appr
On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 11:05:40AM -0400, Przemek Klosowski wrote:
> When I looked into packaging, I found extensive documentation but
> very few tutorial-style materials. I like the hands-on approach so I
> wrote a 'user story' about packaging a simple project:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How
On 15 July 2015 at 11:26, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 07/15/2015 07:03 PM, Przemek Klosowski wrote:
>>
>> On 07/15/2015 12:05 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, 15 Jul 2015 11:05:40 -0400, Przemek Klosowski wrote:
>>>
I do understand where you're coming from: the Fedora workflow is qu
On 07/15/2015 07:03 PM, Przemek Klosowski wrote:
On 07/15/2015 12:05 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jul 2015 11:05:40 -0400, Przemek Klosowski wrote:
I do understand where you're coming from: the Fedora workflow is quite
complicated
What exactly do you find "quite complicated"?
https:
On 07/15/2015 12:05 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jul 2015 11:05:40 -0400, Przemek Klosowski wrote:
I do understand where you're coming from: the Fedora workflow is quite
complicated
What exactly do you find "quite complicated"?
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process
I
On 07/15/2015 06:05 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jul 2015 11:05:40 -0400, Przemek Klosowski wrote:
Well, watching all the people that somehow manage to submit new
packages into the review queue, the process up to that point can't be
too bad, and one can safely assume they would be pe
On Wed, 15 Jul 2015 11:05:40 -0400, Przemek Klosowski wrote:
> I do understand where you're coming from: the Fedora workflow is quite
> complicated
What exactly do you find "quite complicated"?
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process
> ... and learning it sometimes feels like drin
On 07/11/2015 08:40 PM, Les Howell wrote:
I have experience in coding and design of projects in more than 20
languages and 9 operating systems. But always as support for existing
systems, and always as tightly coupled code (basically every thing I
wrote ran in real time with multiple har
On Sun, Jul 12, 2015 at 11:27 AM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> One way to do this that is a varient on some other suggestions, is to have
> would be co-maintainers do re-reviews of packages they are interested in
> co-maintaining. Spec files can gain cruft or not be kept fully compliant
> with the la
On Sat, Jul 11, 2015 at 22:38:38 +0100,
Jonathan Underwood wrote:
2) We now have the possibility of obtaining sponsorship through
co-maintaining packages, but that's somewhat low profile and less used
as a route to sponsorship (just an impression-I have no data on this).
I think this is wher
On Sat, 11 Jul 2015 17:40:11 -0700, Les Howell wrote:
> I talk about all this because when you have someone who is interested,
> and even motivated enough to get involved, where does one go to learn
> the accepted techniques and support systems as a total newbie to the
> process? Do you hav
On Sat, 2015-07-11 at 22:38 +0100, Jonathan Underwood wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> Recently I started a thread drawing attention to the large number of
> folks who have submitted packages for review and require sponsorship,
> and the length of time some of those sponsorship requests have been
> outstand
Dear All,
Recently I started a thread drawing attention to the large number of
folks who have submitted packages for review and require sponsorship,
and the length of time some of those sponsorship requests have been
outstanding. A number of people (notably Ben Rosser and Michael
Schwendt) eloquen
33 matches
Mail list logo
