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
27 matches
Mail list logo
