On Sat, Dec 08, 2012 at 12:10:36AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-12-07 at 20:11 +0100, Till Maas wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 05, 2012 at 03:20:14PM -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> >
> > > * 960 - F18 schedule + the holidays (notting, 18:50:29)
> > > * LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/w
On Fri, 2012-12-07 at 20:11 +0100, Till Maas wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 05, 2012 at 03:20:14PM -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote:
>
> > * 960 - F18 schedule + the holidays (notting, 18:50:29)
> > * LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/JaroslavReznik/FedupF18Final -
> > not updated yet (jreznik, 18:58
On Fri, 2012-12-07 at 20:36 +0100, Till Maas wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 07, 2012 at 02:28:16PM -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 07, 2012 at 08:11:08PM +0100, Till Maas wrote:
> > > > * 960 - F18 schedule + the holidays (notting, 18:50:29)
> > > > * LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Jaro
On Fri, Dec 07, 2012 at 02:28:16PM -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 07, 2012 at 08:11:08PM +0100, Till Maas wrote:
> > > * 960 - F18 schedule + the holidays (notting, 18:50:29)
> > > * LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/JaroslavReznik/FedupF18Final -
> > > not updated yet (jrezn
On Fri, Dec 07, 2012 at 08:11:08PM +0100, Till Maas wrote:
> > * 960 - F18 schedule + the holidays (notting, 18:50:29)
> > * LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/JaroslavReznik/FedupF18Final -
> > not updated yet (jreznik, 18:58:15)
> > * AGREED: Do not block on fedup signature checking (
On Wed, Dec 05, 2012 at 03:20:14PM -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> * 960 - F18 schedule + the holidays (notting, 18:50:29)
> * LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/JaroslavReznik/FedupF18Final -
> not updated yet (jreznik, 18:58:15)
> * AGREED: Do not block on fedup signature checking (
On 12/07/2012 06:37 PM, Michael Scherer wrote:
While I cannot answer for Jóhann, I think a proposal could be to
contact for example QA, as some features will have a huge impact for
them. Contact irc support, as they may have some insight on the common
issue reported by people, etc.
We have a tr
Le vendredi 07 décembre 2012 à 18:22 +0100, Pierre-Yves Chibon a écrit :
> On Fri, Dec 07, 2012 at 04:51:43PM +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> > On 12/07/2012 04:46 PM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> > >On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 11:13 AM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"
> > > wrote:
> > >>>I am not sure why d
On 12/07/2012 05:22 PM, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
On Fri, Dec 07, 2012 at 04:51:43PM +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
On 12/07/2012 04:46 PM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 11:13 AM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"
wrote:
I am not sure why do you want to categorize it by size and i
On Fri, Dec 07, 2012 at 06:06:24AM -0500, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
> Do not call it "Feature Process" but "Planning process" - as it
> fits the decision to create F19 schedule after we know the scope
+1 to that!
--
Matthew Miller ☁☁☁ Fedora Cloud Architect ☁☁☁
--
devel mailing list
devel@lis
On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 6:22 PM, Emmanuel Seyman wrote:
> * Miloslav Trmač [07/12/2012 18:07] :
>>
>> Advertising the feature on the _devel_ list is intended precisely to
>> get feedback from developers of other possibly affected components.
>
> IIRC, being subscribed to devel@ is not mandatory.
I
* Miloslav Trmač [07/12/2012 18:07] :
>
> Advertising the feature on the _devel_ list is intended precisely to
> get feedback from developers of other possibly affected components.
IIRC, being subscribed to devel@ is not mandatory.
Emmanuel
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
htt
On Fri, Dec 07, 2012 at 04:51:43PM +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> On 12/07/2012 04:46 PM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> >On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 11:13 AM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"
> > wrote:
> >>>I am not sure why do you want to categorize it by size and impact, when it
> >>>will be autocategorize
On 12/07/2012 04:46 PM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 11:13 AM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"
wrote:
I am not sure why do you want to categorize it by size and impact, when it
will be autocategorized by feedback on ML.
It's common knowledge that you cant autocategorized by feedback on
On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 11:13 AM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"
wrote:
>> I am not sure why do you want to categorize it by size and impact, when it
>> will be autocategorized by feedback on ML.
>
> It's common knowledge that you cant autocategorized by feedback on Mailing
> list regardless what's it's f
Dne 7.12.2012 15:06, Jaroslav Reznik napsal(a):
- Original Message -
It doesn't matter from a "get this thing into Fedora" standpoint. It
very much matters from a marketing/communication standpoint. If it
didn't matter, Fedora Marketing wouldn't be picking specific items
out
of the ove
- Original Message -
> It doesn't matter from a "get this thing into Fedora" standpoint. It
> very much matters from a marketing/communication standpoint. If it
> didn't matter, Fedora Marketing wouldn't be picking specific items
> out
> of the overall Feature list.
>
> The example I use
On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 4:28 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
>>> Alternately, "Feature" could be the term for the any small or big thing
>>> which is useful to track and tout for marketing purposes, and big
>>> technical
>>> changes could be, I dunno... "Major Changes".
>>
>> The meeting minutes showed that
On 12/07/2012 11:13 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Dne 7.12.2012 11:13, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" napsal(a):
On 12/07/2012 09:28 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Feature is something somebody considers important enough to create
feature page for it. Period.
That describes the current state and is your point of
Dne 7.12.2012 11:13, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" napsal(a):
On 12/07/2012 09:28 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Feature is something somebody considers important enough to create
feature page for it. Period.
That describes the current state and is your point of view.
To me an "Feature" is a completely d
- Original Message -
> On Fri, 2012-12-07 at 10:28 +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> > Dne 6.12.2012 21:40, Josh Boyer napsal(a):
> > > On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 3:18 PM, Matthew Miller
> > > wrote:
> > >> On Thu, Dec 06, 2012 at 11:20:22AM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> > >>> As I said in the meeting
On Fri, 2012-12-07 at 10:28 +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> Dne 6.12.2012 21:40, Josh Boyer napsal(a):
> > On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 3:18 PM, Matthew Miller
> > wrote:
> >> On Thu, Dec 06, 2012 at 11:20:22AM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> >>> As I said in the meeting yesterday, I think the definition of a
On 12/07/2012 09:28 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Feature is something somebody considers important enough to create
feature page for it. Period.
That describes the current state and is your point of view.
To me an "Feature" is a completely different thing.
I am not sure why do you want to categ
Dne 6.12.2012 21:40, Josh Boyer napsal(a):
On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 3:18 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Thu, Dec 06, 2012 at 11:20:22AM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
As I said in the meeting yesterday, I think the definition of a Feature
needs to be cleared up before we can really tackle this one. Fea
Dne 6.12.2012 18:23, Josh Boyer napsal(a):
On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 11:54 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Also, there was dissent already in the "auto-approving" of leaf-features
during the meeting discussion so I am not sure that auto-accepting of
Features in general given a lack of response is ever goin
On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 3:18 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 06, 2012 at 11:20:22AM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
>> As I said in the meeting yesterday, I think the definition of a Feature
>> needs to be cleared up before we can really tackle this one. Feature to
>> me is something important en
On Thu, Dec 06, 2012 at 11:20:22AM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> As I said in the meeting yesterday, I think the definition of a Feature
> needs to be cleared up before we can really tackle this one. Feature to
> me is something important enough that it shouldn't be auto-accepted. If
> there is some
On 12/06/2012 04:20 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
As I said in the meeting yesterday, I think the definition of a Feature
needs to be cleared up before we can really tackle this one. Feature to
me is something important enough that it shouldn't be auto-accepted. If
there is some other class of thing pe
On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 11:54 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
>>> Also, there was dissent already in the "auto-approving" of leaf-features
>>> during the meeting discussion so I am not sure that auto-accepting of
>>> Features in general given a lack of response is ever going to actually
>>> happen. I perso
Dne 6.12.2012 17:02, Tomas Mraz napsal(a):
On Thu, 2012-12-06 at 09:07 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 5:42 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
* 896 - Refine Feature Process (notting, 18:07:50)
* AGREED: Feature process modification: features are announced on
devel-announce by f
On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 11:02 AM, Tomas Mraz wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-12-06 at 09:07 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 5:42 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
>> >> * 896 - Refine Feature Process (notting, 18:07:50)
>> >>* AGREED: Feature process modification: features are announced on
>> >
On Thu, 2012-12-06 at 09:07 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 5:42 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> >> * 896 - Refine Feature Process (notting, 18:07:50)
> >>* AGREED: Feature process modification: features are announced on
> >> devel-announce by feature wrangler once wrangler v
On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 5:42 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
>> * 896 - Refine Feature Process (notting, 18:07:50)
>>* AGREED: Feature process modification: features are announced on
>> devel-announce by feature wrangler once wrangler verifies feature
>> page content (+:9, -:0) (notting, 18:
Dne 5.12.2012 21:20, Bill Nottingham napsal(a):
===
#fedora-meeting: FESCO (2012-12-05)
===
Meeting started by notting at 18:07:27 UTC. The full logs are available
at
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2012-12-05/fesco
34 matches
Mail list logo
