Miloslav Trmač (m...@volny.cz) said:
> On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 4:18 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 08:14:13AM -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> >> Personally, my stance on this is that, provided that the forks are
> >> properly renamed such that they will not conflict with
On Mon, 2012-02-27 at 15:18 +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 08:14:13AM -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>
> > Personally, my stance on this is that, provided that the forks are
> > properly renamed such that they will not conflict with other forks of
> > the same codebase, t
On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 4:18 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 08:14:13AM -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>
>> Personally, my stance on this is that, provided that the forks are
>> properly renamed such that they will not conflict with other forks of
>> the same codebase, there'
On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 08:14:13AM -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> Personally, my stance on this is that, provided that the forks are
> properly renamed such that they will not conflict with other forks of
> the same codebase, there's no reason to disallow them. As mentioned by
> Toshio in the t
On Mon, 2012-02-27 at 08:07 +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> Kevin Fenzi wrote on 27.02.2012 04:21:
> >
> > #topic #810 Clarify our position on forks .fesco 810
>
> It's just a statement that is asked for in the ticket, but nevertheless:
> Shouldn't issues like this be discussed on this list fir
Kevin Fenzi wrote on 27.02.2012 04:21:
>
> #topic #810 Clarify our position on forks .fesco 810
It's just a statement that is asked for in the ticket, but nevertheless:
Shouldn't issues like this be discussed on this list first, so FESCo
members can get a impression from the flamewar ^w discussio
On Mon, 23 Jan 2012 22:07:31 +0100
Thomas Woerner wrote:
> Here are two more in ReadyForWrangler state:
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/firewalld-default
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/network-zones
The _submission_ deadline is tomorrow. ;)
We will get all the features
Here are two more in ReadyForWrangler state:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/firewalld-default
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/network-zones
Thanks,
Thomas
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Here is another feature which is belated ReadyForWrangler:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/OpenStack_Essex
Rich.
--
Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones
libguestfs lets you edit virtual machines. Supports shell scripting,
bindings from many l
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 7:27 AM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Jan 2012 09:26:26 +0100
> Vít Ondruch wrote:
>
>> Dne 23.1.2012 03:40, Cole Robinson napsal(a):
>> > Hi Kevin,
>> >
>> > I filed a feature page 2 Fridays ago that's been sitting in
>> > ReadyForWrangler since:
>> >
>> > https://fedo
On Mon, 23 Jan 2012 10:33:21 -0500
Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-01-23 at 08:27 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > Since feature freeze is tomorrow, I'd like to see us finish all of
> > them
>
> Just to clarify, in case anyone just had a heart-attack, tomorrow is
> the Feature Submission De
On Mon, 2012-01-23 at 08:27 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> Since feature freeze is tomorrow, I'd like to see us finish all of them
Just to clarify, in case anyone just had a heart-attack, tomorrow is the
Feature Submission Deadline, *not* the Feature Freeze.
According to http://fedoraproject.org/wik
On Mon, 23 Jan 2012 09:26:26 +0100
Vít Ondruch wrote:
> Dne 23.1.2012 03:40, Cole Robinson napsal(a):
> > Hi Kevin,
> >
> > I filed a feature page 2 Fridays ago that's been sitting in
> > ReadyForWrangler since:
> >
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/OpenStack_Horizon
> >
> > Anything I
Dne 23.1.2012 03:40, Cole Robinson napsal(a):
On 01/22/2012 07:44 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FESCo
meeting tomorrow at 18:00UTC (1:00pm EST) in #fedora-meeting on
irc.freenode.net.
Links to all tickets below can be found at:
https://fedo
On 01/22/2012 07:44 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FESCo
> meeting tomorrow at 18:00UTC (1:00pm EST) in #fedora-meeting on
> irc.freenode.net.
>
> Links to all tickets below can be found at:
> https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/report/9
>
> = F
2012/1/15 Miloslav Trmač :
> Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FESCo
> meeting tomorrow at 18:00UTC (1:00pm EST) in #fedora-meeting on
> irc.freenode.net.
One more thing that may be added to the agenda if there is enough time left:
#topic #724 sponsor request - sdak
===
#fedora-meeting: FESCO (2011-08-29)
===
Meeting started by sgallagh at 17:00:05 UTC. The full logs are available
at
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2011-08-29/fesco.2011-08-29-17.00.log.html
.
Meeting summary
-
> * #531 Orphaned package ownership claiming clarification (sgallagh,
> 17:40:47)
> * AGREED: Policy will change to ""If a package is in orphan state in
> pkgdb, feel free to take it and revivie it, no re-review needed. If
> it's depreciated, you must re-review and get admins to unbl
===
#fedora-meeting: FESCO (2011-06-27)
===
Meeting started by sgallagh at 17:01:05 UTC. The full logs are available
at
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2011-06-27/fesco.2011-06-27-17.01.log.html
.
Meeting summary
-
On Mon, 2011-06-27 at 12:24 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Stephen Gallagher (sgall...@redhat.com) said:
> > Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FESCo
> >
> > meeting tomorrow at 17:30UTC (1:30pm EDT) in #fedora-meeting on
> > irc.freenode.net.
>
> I thought the decis
Stephen Gallagher (sgall...@redhat.com) said:
> Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FESCo
>
> meeting tomorrow at 17:30UTC (1:30pm EDT) in #fedora-meeting on
> irc.freenode.net.
I thought the decision at last meeting was 1700 UTC/1pm EDT?
Bill
--
devel mailing list
de
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 05:16:12PM -0400, Adam Jackson wrote:
> and compiling it. In this case, -z relro on its own will not help: the
> address of the 'exit' function isn't known until it's first called,
> because function resolution is normally done lazily, and because the
> 'exit' symbol is
On 6/24/11 3:31 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> I don't think GHC generates C (it used to, a very long time ago). GHC
> and OCaml contain code generators that generate machine code directly.
>
> So this could require changes to the code generator, but at least for
> RELRO it seems this is just a
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 02:21:36PM -0400, Adam Jackson wrote:
> I played briefly with jamming relro into ghc command line options, and
> you can kind of do it ("-optl-z -optlrelro -optlc-Wl,z,relro" in
> ghc-options), but it doesn't change much on its own. You do end up with
> an executable with a
On Thu, 2011-06-23 at 09:54 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 03:57:58PM -0400, Adam Jackson wrote:
> > * #563 suggested policy: all daemons must set RELRO and PIE flags
> > (ajax, 17:53:41)
> > * LINK: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/93 (nirik, 17:54:34)
> > *
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 10:54 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 03:57:58PM -0400, Adam Jackson wrote:
>> * #563 suggested policy: all daemons must set RELRO and PIE flags
>> (ajax, 17:53:41)
>> * LINK: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/93 (nirik, 17:54:34)
>> * ACTI
> * #607 F16Feature: Perl 5.14 (ajax, 18:09:12)
> * AGREED: feature is approved (ajax, 18:12:27)
For the record the pending feature is about Trusted boot:
https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/608
> * AGREED: feature is tentatively declined pending demonstration that
> it works without
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 03:57:58PM -0400, Adam Jackson wrote:
> * #563 suggested policy: all daemons must set RELRO and PIE flags
> (ajax, 17:53:41)
> * LINK: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/93 (nirik, 17:54:34)
> * ACTION: nirik to come up with guidelines for next week (ajax,
> 18
On Wed, 2011-06-15 at 21:56 +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> As I say let's put the goal a bit higher and aim atleast for all those
> service on the livecd
>
> > > Any other goals/plans the sysvtosystemd features owners should be aware
> > > of?
> > >
> > > Stephen care to give us a head
On 06/15/2011 07:42 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
On Wed, 2011-06-15 at 18:58 +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
On 06/15/2011 06:25 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
* Open Floor (nirik, 18:07:26)
* ACTION: sgallagh will collect base / core packages that need
conversion to systemd and we wil
On Wed, 2011-06-15 at 18:58 +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> On 06/15/2011 06:25 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > * Open Floor (nirik, 18:07:26)
> >* ACTION: sgallagh will collect base / core packages that need
> > conversion to systemd and we will try and get those done by alpha.
> >
On Wed, 15 Jun 2011 18:58:34 +
"Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> On 06/15/2011 06:25 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > * Open Floor (nirik, 18:07:26)
> >* ACTION: sgallagh will collect base / core packages that need
> > conversion to systemd and we will try and get those done by
> > alpha.
On 06/15/2011 06:25 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> * Open Floor (nirik, 18:07:26)
>* ACTION: sgallagh will collect base / core packages that need
> conversion to systemd and we will try and get those done by alpha.
> (nirik, 18:20:43)
>
Can I ask why FESCO decided to ignore the feature ow
===
#fedora-meeting: FESCO (2011-06-15)
===
Meeting started by nirik at 17:30:02 UTC. The full logs are available at
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2011-06-15/fesco.2011-06-15-17.30.log.html
Meeting summary
-
On 06/08/2011 03:59 PM, Josef Bacik wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 7:59 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>> Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FESCo
>> meeting tomorrow at 17:30UTC (1:30pm EDT) in #fedora-meeting on
>> irc.freenode.net.
>>
>> Links to all tickets below can be fou
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 7:59 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FESCo
> meeting tomorrow at 17:30UTC (1:30pm EDT) in #fedora-meeting on
> irc.freenode.net.
>
> Links to all tickets below can be found at:
> https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/report/9
>
Once upon a time, Richard W.M. Jones said:
> Maybe I'm not understanding your question correctly, but a filesystem
> is more general than LVM. You can create directories corresponding to
> your current VGs and files for your LVs, with the advantage that you
> can nest directories which you can't
On Thu, Jun 02, 2011 at 12:44:46PM -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Josef Bacik said:
> > These sort of issues are my priority and I've spent the last 2 months
> > specifically working on the kvm performance differences between ext4
> > and btrfs. Now we're not on par with ext4 yet,
Once upon a time, Stephen John Smoogen said:
> I wonder if the btrfs solution would be that you would just use raw
> partitions and not use btrfs for it.
>
> eg
> /dev/sda1 is /boot
> /dev/sda2 is swap
> /dev/sda3 is btrfs /
> /dev/sda4 is VM-01
> /dev/sda5 is VM-02
That would work, but that los
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 11:44, Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Josef Bacik said:
>> These sort of issues are my priority and I've spent the last 2 months
>> specifically working on the kvm performance differences between ext4
>> and btrfs. Now we're not on par with ext4 yet, but we aren't
Once upon a time, Josef Bacik said:
> These sort of issues are my priority and I've spent the last 2 months
> specifically working on the kvm performance differences between ext4
> and btrfs. Now we're not on par with ext4 yet, but we aren't 2-3
> times slower any more, maybe at the most we're 20
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 11:46 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 01, 2011 at 04:15:59PM +0100, Peter Robinson wrote:
>> I will be unable to attend tomorrow but I have concerns of making btrfs
>> default without a well tested fsck. I'm aware one is due soon but I don't
>> believe 3-4 months
On Wed, Jun 01, 2011 at 04:15:59PM +0100, Peter Robinson wrote:
> I will be unable to attend tomorrow but I have concerns of making btrfs
> default without a well tested fsck. I'm aware one is due soon but I don't
> believe 3-4 months is enough time to test it well enough. On 2.6.38.x I
> still get
Messaggio originale
Da: Peter Robinson
Inviato: 01/06/2011, 22:41
A: Development discussions related to Fedora
Oggetto: Re: Plan for tomorrow's FESCo meeting (2011-06-01)
On 1 Jun 2011 19:44, "Josef Bacik" wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 11:15 AM, Peter Robins
Peter Robinson wrote:
> Yes. Well at least I've submitted them using abrt to wherever is sends
> the kernel crash dumps. Not done a manual separate bug though.
If you add the BZ#s here or CC Josef on them I'm sure he'd be glad to help.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://a
On 1 Jun 2011 19:44, "Josef Bacik" wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 11:15 AM, Peter Robinson
wrote:
> > I will be unable to attend tomorrow but I have concerns of making btrfs
> > default without a well tested fsck. I'm aware one is due soon but I
don't
> > believe 3-4 months is enough time to t
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 11:15 AM, Peter Robinson wrote:
> I will be unable to attend tomorrow but I have concerns of making btrfs
> default without a well tested fsck. I'm aware one is due soon but I don't
> believe 3-4 months is enough time to test it well enough. On 2.6.38.x I
> still get regular
I will be unable to attend tomorrow but I have concerns of making btrfs
default without a well tested fsck. I'm aware one is due soon but I don't
believe 3-4 months is enough time to test it well enough. On 2.6.38.x I
still get regular kernel abrt crashes on resume. Is it even marked stable in
the
===
#fedora-meeting: FESCO (2011-04-27)
===
Meeting started by nirik at 17:30:01 UTC. The full logs are available at
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2011-04-27/fesco.2011-04-27-17.30.log.html
Meeting summary
-
===
#fedora-meeting: FESCO (2011-03-30)
===
Meeting started by nirik at 17:30:01 UTC. The full logs are available at
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2011-03-30/fesco.2011-03-30-17.30.log.html
Meeting summary
-
On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 20:55:26 +0100
Michał Piotrowski wrote:
> Hi,
...snip...
> >
> > #544 List of services that may start by default
> > .fesco 544
>
> Please post a log after the meeting
I always do. ;)
Note that I wasn't sure if we are even going to discuss that this week,
as it's still s
Hi,
2011/2/22 Kevin Fenzi :
> Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FESCo
> meeting tomorrow at 17:30UTC (12:30pm EDT) in #fedora-meeting on
> irc.freenode.net.
>
> Links to all tickets below can be found at:
> https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/report/9
>
> = Followups =
>
> #
On Thu, 13 Jan 2011 13:14:46 +0100
Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
> Make sense, I try to find some spare time to look on it. Not feeling
> well today so...
No hurry. :)
> But my first dumb question is - what's the current state of stable
> updates policy? Is it implemented already as I'm quite lost in
On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 10:33:06 +0100
Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 12, 2011 09:40:02 am Jóhann B. Guðmundsson
> wrote:
> > On 01/11/2011 08:59 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > > #topic #515 Investigate a "features" repo for stable releases
> > > .fesco 515
> >
> > I think this is a good
On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 01:59:08PM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FESCo
> meeting tomorrow at 17:30UTC (12:30pm EDT) in #fedora-meeting on
> irc.freenode.net. Note that we may not have quorum, so may adjourn
> early.
>
I'm going to be la
On 01/11/2011 08:59 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> #topic #515 Investigate a "features" repo for stable releases
> .fesco 515
I think this is a good direction to take for those that want more
*Bleeding edge/Next release* stuff on a stable release as in having
technology preview/feature repos.
What I
On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 13:59:08 -0700
Kevin Fenzi wrote:
...snip...
> If you would like to add something to this agenda, you can reply to
> this e-mail, file a new ticket at https://fedorahosted.org/fesco,
> e-mail me directly, or bring it up at the end of the meeting, during
> the open floor topic
On Wed, Dec 01, 2010 at 11:38:05AM -0500, Steven Parrish wrote:
> >
> > If you would like to add something to this agenda, you can reply to
> > this e-mail, file a new ticket at https://fedorahosted.org/fesco,
> > e-mail me directly, or bring it up at the end of the meeting, during
> > the open flo
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 4:44 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FESCo
> meeting tomorrow at 18:30UTC (1:30pm EDT) in #fedora-meeting on
> irc.freenode.net.
>
> This meeting will have newly elected Fesco Members as well as outgoing ones.
>
> = Fol
On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 01:18:54AM -0500, Genes MailLists wrote:
> On 11/25/2010 01:13 AM, Genes MailLists wrote:
> > http://oswatershed.org/
>
> Hmm some interesting data there and some looks wrong to me:
>
> I see openssh at 5.5p1 not 5.0p1. but some like apache ours is lagging
> by quite a
On 11/25/2010 01:13 AM, Genes MailLists wrote:
> On 11/22/2010 01:23 PM, Genes MailLists wrote:
>> On 11/22/2010 09:44 AM, Genes MailLists wrote:
>>
>> ... rolling releases ...
>
>
>
> Interesting website - may be useful in thinking about the release
> cycle ... or not :-)
>
> http://oswate
On 11/22/2010 01:23 PM, Genes MailLists wrote:
> On 11/22/2010 09:44 AM, Genes MailLists wrote:
>
> ... rolling releases ...
Interesting website - may be useful in thinking about the release
cycle ... or not :-)
http://oswatershed.org/
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
h
On 11/22/2010 09:44 AM, Genes MailLists wrote:
> On 11/22/2010 04:21 AM, Hans de Goede wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 11/22/2010 12:59 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
>
>
>>> It seems like what you want is actually not to have three releases at a
>>> time at all but to have one and update it constantly. And I
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 8:37 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Adam Jackson (a...@redhat.com) said:
>> On Tue, 2010-11-23 at 13:05 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>> > Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FESCo
>> > meeting tomorrow at 18:30UTC (1:30pm EDT) in #fedora-meeting on
>> >
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 12:39, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On 11/22/2010 11:18 AM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
>> They said that they install a Fedora for testing
>> purposes when it first comes out and enjoy the rapid pace of bugfixes as
>> they test the software in their environment. Then, the update pac
Adam Jackson (a...@redhat.com) said:
> On Tue, 2010-11-23 at 13:05 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FESCo
> > meeting tomorrow at 18:30UTC (1:30pm EDT) in #fedora-meeting on
> > irc.freenode.net.
>
> I'm not going to be able to make this,
On Tue, 2010-11-23 at 13:05 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FESCo
> meeting tomorrow at 18:30UTC (1:30pm EDT) in #fedora-meeting on
> irc.freenode.net.
I'm not going to be able to make this, I'll be on the road for
Thanksgiving.
- ajax
--
On 11/23/10 12:16 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 11:39:02AM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
>> On 11/22/2010 11:18 AM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
>>> They said that they install a Fedora for testing
>>> purposes when it first comes out and enjoy the rapid pace of bugfixes as
>>> they
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 11:39:02AM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On 11/22/2010 11:18 AM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> > They said that they install a Fedora for testing
> > purposes when it first comes out and enjoy the rapid pace of bugfixes as
> > they test the software in their environment. Then, t
On Tue, 2010-11-23 at 18:32 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> >> Note that Fedora #-2 does not fit into this view for things at all,
> >> Fedora #-2 is meant to allow people to skip a Fedora release. But in
> >> practice I think this works out badly, because a relatively new Fedora
> >> release like Fe
Till Maas wrote:
> It is totally annoying and time consuming to hit fixed bugs again, just
> because the update has not been pushed from testing to stable. I cannot
> really imagine that I am the only one experiencing this ever and ever
> again. E.g. just today when I wanted to debug f-e-k on the F
Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-11-22 at 10:21 +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
>> So taking for example the much much discussed KDE rebases. I think that
>> doing a KDE rebase for Fedora #+1 is a no brainer, for Fedora # is fine
>> as long as it is properly tested and for Fedora #-1 KDE should N
On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 11:11 PM, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
> It is already complicated enough to push a patch for Fedora. One has to find
> the right unused Patch number, add %patch, git add it, bump Revision, create a
> %changelog entry with the BZ number, run Koji build, run Bodhi, copy the
> %chan
On Mon, 22 Nov 2010 14:32:04 -0800
Jesse Keating wrote:
> On 11/22/10 12:47 PM, Till Maas wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 12:31:05PM -0800, Mike Fedyk wrote:
> >
> >> So they stay in updates-testing until someone does actually test
> >> them.
> >>
> >> We all know that the longer that updates
On 11/22/10 12:47 PM, Till Maas wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 12:31:05PM -0800, Mike Fedyk wrote:
>
>> So they stay in updates-testing until someone does actually test them.
>>
>> We all know that the longer that updates wait in updates-testing the
>> more likely the world will stop spinning.
>
On Mon, 22 Nov 2010 21:47:59 +0100
Till Maas wrote:
> It is totally annoying and time consuming to hit fixed bugs again,
> just because the update has not been pushed from testing to stable. I
> cannot really imagine that I am the only one experiencing this ever
> and ever again. E.g. just today
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 12:31:05PM -0800, Mike Fedyk wrote:
> So they stay in updates-testing until someone does actually test them.
>
> We all know that the longer that updates wait in updates-testing the
> more likely the world will stop spinning.
It is totally annoying and time consuming to h
On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 1:54 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Adam Williamson wrote:
>> How do you expect to be able to maintain an entire desktop environment
>> on a distribution you don't even have installed? I have some sympathy
>> for the 'fifty people said it works on F14, it probably works on F12
>
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 8:15 PM, mike cloaked wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 6:59 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
>
>>> Good point ... was thinking it was a way to ensure anaconda keeps
>>> pace but you're right ... it should follow the actual changes ...
>>>
>>> Do you have any suggestions ho
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 6:59 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
>> Good point ... was thinking it was a way to ensure anaconda keeps
>> pace but you're right ... it should follow the actual changes ...
>>
>> Do you have any suggestions how to manage ensuring that each ISO
>> snapshot has a working
On 11/22/2010 11:18 AM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> They said that they install a Fedora for testing
> purposes when it first comes out and enjoy the rapid pace of bugfixes as
> they test the software in their environment. Then, the update pace slows
> down at about the same time their ready to push
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 08:18:04AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-11-22 at 10:21 +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
>
> > The way I see it, is we have:
> >
> > rawhide (and for a part of the cycle Fedora #+1 testing)
> > Fedora #
> > Fedora #-1
> > Fedora #-2
> >
> > Fedora #+1 is for peo
On 11/22/2010 01:59 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
>>Do you have any suggestions how to manage ensuring that each ISO
>> snapshot has a working anaconda ?
>
> This is the kind of thing automated testing would help a lot with; we
> already have some automated testing of anaconda in place, but it do
On Mon, 2010-11-22 at 13:47 -0500, Genes MailLists wrote:
> On 11/22/2010 01:35 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Mon, 2010-11-22 at 13:23 -0500, Genes MailLists wrote:
> >
> >>* A major version should be imposed every 6 months if it
> >> has not for some reason.
> >
> >
On 11/22/2010 01:35 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-11-22 at 13:23 -0500, Genes MailLists wrote:
>
>>* A major version should be imposed every 6 months if it
>> has not for some reason.
>
> Why? Your idea of tying version bumps to actual changes in the product
>
On Mon, 2010-11-22 at 13:23 -0500, Genes MailLists wrote:
>* A major version should be imposed every 6 months if it
> has not for some reason.
Why? Your idea of tying version bumps to actual changes in the product
rather than an arbitrary timeline is an interesting one, b
On 11/22/2010 09:44 AM, Genes MailLists wrote:
> repo.
>
> * Whenever we move a bunch of packages from staging to
> stable we raise the minor number to M.(n+1). Larger
> changes may require major number bump if deemed
> appropriate (e.g
On Mon, 2010-11-22 at 10:21 +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
> The way I see it, is we have:
>
> rawhide (and for a part of the cycle Fedora #+1 testing)
> Fedora #
> Fedora #-1
> Fedora #-2
>
> Fedora #+1 is for people who want the bleeding edge
> Fedora # is for people who want the latest and gre
On Mon, 2010-11-22 at 14:13 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> I DON'T want to get an upgrade such as the one from KDE 3 to 4, the one from
> Amarok 1 to 2, the one from KDevelop 3 to 4, the one from GNOME 2 to 3 etc.
> as a regular update! Those are what new releases are for! (And there's your
> "cl
On 11/22/2010 04:21 AM, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 11/22/2010 12:59 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
>> It seems like what you want is actually not to have three releases at a
>> time at all but to have one and update it constantly. And I actually
>> rather suspect that would be a model that wo
Adam Williamson wrote:
> But the fact remains that *right now*, this is what Fedora is. I think
> that it makes sense to commit to being whatever we are fully. Right now,
> we're a stable release distribution; we should work to make those
> releases properly stable, to actually be what we represent
On 21 November 2010 18:10, Adam Williamson wrote:
> If I were a KDE user running F12 I'd feel very
> unsafe knowing someone was happily pushing updates of the entire
> environment who did not even have a running F12 machine.
I am such a user and I have no such feeling :-) but thanks for asking.
Hi,
On 11/22/2010 12:59 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Sun, 2010-11-21 at 23:04 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>
>> In short: Want higher-quality updates for previous releases? Then push
>> version upgrades wherever possible (even and especially for libraries, as
>> long as they're ABI-compatible or
On Mon, 22 Nov 2010 00:32:38 +0100, Matt McCutchen wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-11-20 at 23:09 +0100, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
> > One has to give up on backporting new fixes to ever get any delivered.
>
> That's not true. You can continue committing fixes and running builds
> in Koji; just don't submit an
On Sun, 2010-11-21 at 23:04 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> In short: Want higher-quality updates for previous releases? Then push
> version upgrades wherever possible (even and especially for libraries, as
> long as they're ABI-compatible or can be group-pushed with a small set of
> rebuilt rever
On Sat, 2010-11-20 at 23:09 +0100, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
> Oh, I forgot, Fedora no longer delivers the fix in a day but ... even not in
> a week. Because I usually create new build during the updates-testing week so
> the days start to count again.
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/g
I wrote:
> Adam Williamson wrote:
>> How do you expect to be able to maintain an entire desktop environment
>> on a distribution you don't even have installed? I have some sympathy
>> for the 'fifty people said it works on F14, it probably works on F12
>> too' argument, but for a *small, leaf* pac
Adam Williamson wrote:
> How do you expect to be able to maintain an entire desktop environment
> on a distribution you don't even have installed? I have some sympathy
> for the 'fifty people said it works on F14, it probably works on F12
> too' argument, but for a *small, leaf* package, not for an
On Sunday 21 November 2010, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On 11/20/10 6:54 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > The breakage is supposed to be noticed and fixed during the extensive
> > testing we do for that kind of updates. We tested 4.5.x for about half a
> > year in total: ~3 months of prerelease testing in kd
On 11/20/10 6:54 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> The breakage is supposed to be noticed and fixed during the extensive
> testing we do for that kind of updates. We tested 4.5.x for about half a
> year in total: ~3 months of prerelease testing in kde-redhat unstable, ~2
> months of 4.5.x testing in kde
1 - 100 of 173 matches
Mail list logo
