On 23/01/2014 02:02 πμ, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Jan 2014 00:41:52 +0400
> Peter Lemenkov wrote:
>
>> 2014/1/23 Kevin Fenzi :
>>
>>> Can you please file a infrastructure ticket on this and I will get
>>> it updated.
>>
>> Don't know what others think, but I personally prefer GitHub pull
>>
Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
> I'm confused, are you talking about: https://fedorahosted.org/pkgdb2/ ?
If this is now on Fedora Hosted, that's a good thing. :-) Thank you for
that! So you don't have to feel targeted (anymore), you already did the
right thing.
Kevin Kofler
--
devel mailin
On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 01:23:13AM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Peter Lemenkov wrote:
> > IMHO you're absolutely wrong. Fortunately it seems that not so much
> > people agree with you since I see a lot of activily on a given
> > third-party proprietary web service (compared with a dead silence at
>
Once upon a time, Kevin Kofler said:
> This shows that people have not learned ANYTHING from the ButtKeeper fiasco.
> :-(
I think there's a big difference between that and Github. AFAIK Github
isn't trying to claim ownership of all data and metadata related to
hosted projects, or restrict who c
On 01/24/2014 01:05 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Hi
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 7:34 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
I don't like github being non-free, particularly, but the practical
consequences of that are fairly minor.
Tickets and history of those tickets can be important
You can expor
On Thu, 2014-01-23 at 20:05 -0500, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> Hi
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 7:34 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
>
>
> I don't like github being non-free, particularly, but the
> practical
> consequences of that are fairly minor.
>
>
> Ticket
Hi
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 7:34 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
>
>
> I don't like github being non-free, particularly, but the practical
> consequences of that are fairly minor.
>
Tickets and history of those tickets can be important
Rahul
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https
On 23 January 2014 17:28, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Adam Williamson wrote:request process down people's throats).
>
> > has anyone yet publicly noted the irony of someone building a wildly
> > successful proprietary SCM platform on top of a project that was written
> > to rescue the kernel from a pro
On Thu, 2014-01-23 at 16:34 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> It's hardly a bitbucket
> situation.
Damnit, I mean bitkeeper. I have those two wires crossed somewhere in my
brain.
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
ht
On Fri, 2014-01-24 at 01:23 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Fedora MUST NOT be at the whim of third-party code hosting services,
> especially proprietary ones.
I don't see how the code being on github means you're at anyone's
'whim'. git is a self-contained, distributed scm. If github turns evil,
t
On Fri, 24 Jan 2014 01:23:13 +0100
Kevin Kofler wrote:
> That's why we need enforcement. There should be a statement from a
> competent committee (Board, FESCo, whomever) that effective NOW,
> stuff can ONLY be uploaded to production (and staging too, probably)
> infrastructure if it is either:
>
Adam Williamson wrote:
> And you can, of course, just mail patches to mailing lists. That's what
> git was designed for in the first place, and it appears to work
> perfectly well for kernel and anaconda devs...
Or simply attach them to an issue in the issue tracker, which works with
practically
Peter Lemenkov wrote:
> IMHO you're absolutely wrong. Fortunately it seems that not so much
> people agree with you since I see a lot of activily on a given
> third-party proprietary web service (compared with a dead silence at
> fedorahosted). So actually people already voted, and they voted
> aga
On Wed, 2014-01-22 at 17:02 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Jan 2014 00:41:52 +0400
> Peter Lemenkov wrote:
>
> > 2014/1/23 Kevin Fenzi :
> >
> > > Can you please file a infrastructure ticket on this and I will get
> > > it updated.
> >
> > Don't know what others think, but I personally
2014/1/23 Kevin Kofler :
> IMHO, projects where Fedora is upstream MUST be on fedorahosted.org, we
> should enforce that at least for our infrastructure.
IMHO you're absolutely wrong. Fortunately it seems that not so much
people agree with you since I see a lot of activily on a given
third-party
Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> While github is nice for pulls and patches, it's not so great for
> tickets and support needs.
>
> github issues are very primitive last I looked and wouldn't meet Fedora
> Infrastructures needs, IMHO.
I also object to the idea of hosting critical parts of our infrastructure
On Thu, 23 Jan 2014 00:41:52 +0400
Peter Lemenkov wrote:
> 2014/1/23 Kevin Fenzi :
>
> > Can you please file a infrastructure ticket on this and I will get
> > it updated.
>
> Don't know what others think, but I personally prefer GitHub pull
> requests because they are much simpler and don't in
On Wed, 22 Jan 2014 21:29:33 +0100
poma wrote:
> Error!
>
> The following error(s) have occurred with your request:
>
> username: 'poma' already exists. :)
>
> Sorry, NoGO.
If someone else has that account name, you will need to pick another
one.
If you don't want to make an account, I
2014/1/23 Kevin Fenzi :
> Can you please file a infrastructure ticket on this and I will get it
> updated.
Don't know what others think, but I personally prefer GitHub pull
requests because they are much simpler and don't involve any
interaction with stone age software like trac or various MTAs.
On 22.01.2014 21:03, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Jan 2014 19:52:23 +0100
> poma wrote:
>
>>
>> Fedora 18 End of Life
>> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/announce/2014-January/003194.html
>>
>> boot.fedoraproject.org (BFO):
>>
>> - Fedora-18-i386/x86_64
>> https://git.fedorahosted.org
On Wed, 22 Jan 2014 19:52:23 +0100
poma wrote:
>
> Fedora 18 End of Life
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/announce/2014-January/003194.html
>
> boot.fedoraproject.org (BFO):
>
> - Fedora-18-i386/x86_64
> https://git.fedorahosted.org/cgit/fedora-infrastructure.git/plain/bfo/pxelinux.
On Wed, 10 Aug 2011 18:26:43 +0200
Rudolf Kastl wrote:
> Hello,
>
> A bit of (hopefully) constructive feedback. It might help with testing
> and adoption of fedora if the rcs and alpha releases are made
> available in the bfo setup. Actually within the "experimental" folder
> there is only a tc1
2011/8/11 Vratislav Podzimek :
> On Thu, 2011-08-11 at 06:46 -0700, John Reiser wrote:
>> On 08/11/2011 05:26 AM, Vratislav Podzimek wrote:
>> > On Wed, 2011-08-10 at 18:26 +0200, Rudolf Kastl wrote:
>>
>> >> Last time i tried an install via bfo it didnt really select mirrors
>> >> close to me. (i
On Thu, 2011-08-11 at 06:46 -0700, John Reiser wrote:
> On 08/11/2011 05:26 AM, Vratislav Podzimek wrote:
> > On Wed, 2011-08-10 at 18:26 +0200, Rudolf Kastl wrote:
>
> >> Last time i tried an install via bfo it didnt really select mirrors
> >> close to me. (i think for the install it didnt use a
On 08/11/2011 05:26 AM, Vratislav Podzimek wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-08-10 at 18:26 +0200, Rudolf Kastl wrote:
>> Last time i tried an install via bfo it didnt really select mirrors
>> close to me. (i think for the install it didnt use a mirrorlist but
>> instead a hardcoded repo by default) Is this s
On Wed, 2011-08-10 at 18:26 +0200, Rudolf Kastl wrote:
> Hello,
>
> A bit of (hopefully) constructive feedback. It might help with testing
> and adoption of fedora if the rcs and alpha releases are made
> available in the bfo setup. Actually within the "experimental" folder
> there is only a tc1 o
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 02:02:28PM +0100, Rudolf Kastl wrote:
> Heyyas. I actually gave boot.fedoraproject.org a testrun and i
> realized that by default a repository called "installation" is
> selected with a static repo url. instead i have actually figured that
> selecting the usual standard fedo
On 10/08/10 03:46, Jon Stanley wrote:
>
> Simply because one of the people that tends BFO is in sysadmin-main
> (the people who receive ad...@fp.o) does not make it a proper support
> mechanism. You should use ad...@fp.o for things that are security
> sensitive that should remain confidential to a
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 8:16 AM, Jon Stanley wrote:
> .
>
> The proper place to discuss would be
> infrastruct...@lists.fedoraproject.org. BFO is essentially BKO, and
> all of the custom stuff is in the infrastructure git repo, which can
> be found at git://git.fedorahosted.org/fedora-infrastruct
On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 12:28 PM, Frank Murphy wrote:
> send an email to: ad...@fedoraproject.org
> Subject: BFO
>
> The right people will get back to you.
Simply because one of the people that tends BFO is in sysadmin-main
(the people who receive ad...@fp.o) does not make it a proper support
mec
On 05/08/10 17:02, Patrick MONNERAT wrote:
> Thanks in advance for any hint.
>
> Patrick
>
send an email to: ad...@fedoraproject.org
Subject: BFO
The right people will get back to you.
--
Regards,
Frank Murphy
UTF_8 Encoded
Friend of Fedora
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.o
31 matches
Mail list logo
