Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
> On 05/02/2016 01:24 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>> There is strong engineering value in having two releases per year:
>> release early, release often. There are many projects that develop
>> through Fedora that get thrown into disarray when our cycle gets too far
>>
On 05/02/2016 09:51 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
I had another conversation with them on IRC today. They knew, but when the wrong
schedule was put up they thought FESCo had changed plans. There's also been some
kerfluffle with the strlcat() patches that got pushed out, so we're going to
have to
On Mon, 2016-05-02 at 22:36 +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
>
> If there is genuine interest of start releasing fedora on time you will
> not achieve that goal by not doing or blocking mass rebuilds, you either
> need to stabilize anaconda development earlier in the cycle or find
> another
On 05/02/2016 01:24 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
There is strong engineering value in having two releases per year: release
early, release often. There are many projects that develop through Fedora that
get thrown into disarray when our cycle gets too far out of whack (prominent
examples being
On Monday, 02 May 2016 at 19:22, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
> On Monday, 02 May 2016 at 18:15, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 10:03:51AM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
> > > On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 8:58 AM, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski
> > > wrote:
> > > > On Monday, 02 M
On 05/02/2016 03:35 PM, Peter Robinson wrote:
The reason for not having mass rebuild during F25 development cycle is
very tight schedule for F25 and we would like to avoid slips in F25 as
much as possible. That is the main motivation here.
>>> In other words sacrificing quality for m
>>> The reason for not having mass rebuild during F25 development cycle is
>>> very tight schedule for F25 and we would like to avoid slips in F25 as
>>> much as possible. That is the main motivation here.
>> In other words sacrificing quality for marketing reasons - Utterly poor :(
>>
>
> It's not
On 2 May 2016 17:05, "Chris Murphy" wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 8:58 AM, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski
> wrote:
> > On Monday, 02 May 2016 at 15:24, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> > [...]
> >> All of the major stakeholders that usually trigger a mass rebuild
(GCC, glibc,
> >> etc.) have been n
On Monday, 02 May 2016 at 18:15, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 10:03:51AM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
> > On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 8:58 AM, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski
> > wrote:
> > > On Monday, 02 May 2016 at 15:24, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> > > [...]
> > >> All of the major st
On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 10:03:51AM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
> On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 8:58 AM, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski
> wrote:
> > On Monday, 02 May 2016 at 15:24, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> > [...]
> >> All of the major stakeholders that usually trigger a mass rebuild (GCC,
> >> glibc,
On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 8:58 AM, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski
wrote:
> On Monday, 02 May 2016 at 15:24, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> [...]
>> All of the major stakeholders that usually trigger a mass rebuild (GCC,
>> glibc,
>> etc.) have been notified directly and are on board with this. This
>>
On Monday, 02 May 2016 at 15:24, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
[...]
> All of the major stakeholders that usually trigger a mass rebuild (GCC, glibc,
> etc.) have been notified directly and are on board with this. This
> announcement
> was to ensure that no one was left surprised by this in case we mis
On 05/02/2016 09:12 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 05/02/2016 02:16 PM, Jan Kurik wrote:
>
>> The reason for not having mass rebuild during F25 development cycle is
>> very tight schedule for F25 and we would like to avoid slips in F25 as
>> much as possible. That is the main motivation here.
> In
On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 3:12 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 05/02/2016 02:16 PM, Jan Kurik wrote:
>
> The reason for not having mass rebuild during F25 development cycle is
>> very tight schedule for F25 and we would like to avoid slips in F25 as
>> much as possible. That is the main motivation he
On 05/02/2016 02:16 PM, Jan Kurik wrote:
The reason for not having mass rebuild during F25 development cycle is
very tight schedule for F25 and we would like to avoid slips in F25 as
much as possible. That is the main motivation here.
In other words sacrificing quality for marketing reasons - U
On 05/02/2016 12:15 PM, Jan Kurik wrote:
Hi Fedora developers,
As several people already started to propose their Changes for Fedora
25, I would like to emphasize a decision FESCo made in January [1],
not to do mass rebuild during the Fedora 25 development cycle [2].
This is very unfortunate b
On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 2:07 PM, Jiri Vanek wrote:
> Hello!
>
> this link
> > [1]
> https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/teams/fesco/fesco.2016-01-08-17.22.html
> Do not explain more about the missing mass rebuild. Are there more
> infomration about?
The link points to the minutes from the FESCo me
Hello!
this link
> [1] https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/teams/fesco/fesco.2016-01-08-17.22.html
Do not explain more about the missing mass rebuild. Are there more infomration
about?
[2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/25/Schedule
Thanx!
J.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedo
Hi Fedora developers,
As several people already started to propose their Changes for Fedora
25, I would like to emphasize a decision FESCo made in January [1],
not to do mass rebuild during the Fedora 25 development cycle [2].
All the Changes requiring mass rebuild should be postponed to Fedora 2
19 matches
Mail list logo
