On 06/07/2011 07:04 AM, Peter Hutterer wrote:
> I agree with you but this bug is a bit special in that it is several
> versions out of date. If this was F14 or even F13, the Epoch bump would be
> good. But adding a bump for a mistake on a F10 branch seems unnecessary now.
Even though that makes t
On Sat, Jun 04, 2011 at 02:34:40PM +0300, Ville Skyttä wrote:
> On 06/03/2011 05:52 AM, Peter Hutterer wrote:
>
> > Anyway, I'll tell Jeremy he'll need to manually remove/update.
>
> In my opinion this is a good (or bad?) example how users' life is made
> harder due to irrational fear of the Epoc
On 06/03/2011 05:52 AM, Peter Hutterer wrote:
> Anyway, I'll tell Jeremy he'll need to manually remove/update.
In my opinion this is a good (or bad?) example how users' life is made
harder due to irrational fear of the Epoch. Telling Jeremy won't help
people who don't know that the problem exist
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 5:09 AM, Peter Hutterer wrote:
>
> true, but anyone who would have had hulahop installed at F-10 time and did
> the (guaranteed) update to F11, F12, ... F15 at the right times would still
> have this issue now, right?
>
> tbh, it seems to be corner case enough to just say "u
On Fri, Jun 03, 2011 at 03:12:39AM +0300, Jussi Lehtola wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Jun 2011 09:39:13 +1000
> Peter Hutterer wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 03, 2011 at 02:21:14AM +0300, Jussi Lehtola wrote:
> > > However, given that the problematic package only appeared in Fedora
> > > 10 and upgrade paths are gua
On Fri, 3 Jun 2011 09:39:13 +1000
Peter Hutterer wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 03, 2011 at 02:21:14AM +0300, Jussi Lehtola wrote:
> > However, given that the problematic package only appeared in Fedora
> > 10 and upgrade paths are guaranteed by Fedora policy only from
> > F(N-1) to F(N), I'd say that there
On Fri, Jun 03, 2011 at 02:21:14AM +0300, Jussi Lehtola wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Jun 2011 08:51:55 +1000
> Peter Hutterer wrote:
> > hulahop had it's Epoch bumped on the F-10 branch to
> > hulahop-1:0.4.6-5.fc10 (commit 3c3f6d12edb) to undo 0.4.7 update.
> > That epoch bump was limited to F-10, no other
On Fri, 3 Jun 2011 08:51:55 +1000
Peter Hutterer wrote:
> hulahop had it's Epoch bumped on the F-10 branch to
> hulahop-1:0.4.6-5.fc10 (commit 3c3f6d12edb) to undo 0.4.7 update.
> That epoch bump was limited to F-10, no other branches saw it afaict.
>
> So anyone who ever installed the F-10 packa
