On Qui, 2014-06-12 at 11:06 +0100, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> how is this jujuxiii ?
I mean who is this jujuxiii ?
--
Sérgio M. B.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-cond
On 2014-06-11, Tomasz Torcz wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 11:14:41PM +0200, Emmanuel Seyman wrote:
>> * Reindl Harald [11/06/2014 17:44] :
>> >
>> > um F20 has Kernel 3.14, recent mesa, KDE 4.13 soon, recent LibreOffice
>> > and so on - what are you missing that justifies "move move, go on move
Hi,
On Qua, 2014-06-11 at 12:40 -0400, Adam Jackson wrote:
> On Wed, 2014-06-11 at 17:19 +0100, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> > On Qua, 2014-06-11 at 12:09 -0400, Adam Jackson wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2014-06-11 at 17:56 +0200, drago01 wrote:
> > >
> > > > Oh and xserver really .. I am the one that gets c
On Qua, 2014-06-11 at 23:36 +0200, Simone Caronni wrote:
> Hello,
>
>
> On 11 June 2014 19:11, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> > > Hi, why not begin by a xserver rebase in copr ?
> >
> > Personally, because I don't feel like doing the work twice.
> But if
> > some
* Tomasz Torcz [11/06/2014 23:20] :
>
> So we won't get 5.20 in stable Fedora for a year?
More or less (we don't have a schedule for F22 yet).
Emmanuel
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedo
Hello,
On 11 June 2014 19:11, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> > > Hi, why not begin by a xserver rebase in copr ?
> >
> > Personally, because I don't feel like doing the work twice. But if
> > someone else wants to, sure, go for it.
>
> I could do it, also think about do it for eclipse-swt , but my probl
On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 11:14:41PM +0200, Emmanuel Seyman wrote:
> * Reindl Harald [11/06/2014 17:44] :
> >
> > um F20 has Kernel 3.14, recent mesa, KDE 4.13 soon, recent LibreOffice
> > and so on - what are you missing that justifies "move move, go on move!"
>
> Perl 5.20 was released in May but
* Reindl Harald [11/06/2014 17:44] :
>
> um F20 has Kernel 3.14, recent mesa, KDE 4.13 soon, recent LibreOffice
> and so on - what are you missing that justifies "move move, go on move!"
Perl 5.20 was released in May but hasn't landed in Fedora yet (and won't
until we've branched off F21 from rawh
On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 10:18 PM, David Airlie wrote:
>>
>> > To add some context the feature that I am asking for is working DRI3 +
>> > present ... with mesa 10.2
>> > it gives us GLX_EXT_buffer_age which finally fixes tearing issues in
>> > mutter that some user are experiencing
>> > without us
>
> > To add some context the feature that I am asking for is working DRI3 +
> > present ... with mesa 10.2
> > it gives us GLX_EXT_buffer_age which finally fixes tearing issues in
> > mutter that some user are experiencing
> > without using workarounds like forcing the compositor to always redraw
> To add some context the feature that I am asking for is working DRI3 +
> present ... with mesa 10.2
> it gives us GLX_EXT_buffer_age which finally fixes tearing issues in
> mutter that some user are experiencing
> without using workarounds like forcing the compositor to always redraw
> the whole
On Qua, 2014-06-11 at 12:40 -0400, Adam Jackson wrote:
> On Wed, 2014-06-11 at 17:19 +0100, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> > On Qua, 2014-06-11 at 12:09 -0400, Adam Jackson wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2014-06-11 at 17:56 +0200, drago01 wrote:
> > >
> > > > Oh and xserver really .. I am the one that gets compla
- Original Message -
> My personal opinion is that we ought to try not disrupting the release
> schedule.
> If some features miss the release train, it could wait 6 monthq (and,
> I disagree with dropping the whole server products).
> Fedora.Next is a big change in our model, our priority i
On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 6:09 PM, Adam Jackson wrote:
> On Wed, 2014-06-11 at 17:56 +0200, drago01 wrote:
>
>> Oh and xserver really .. I am the one that gets complaints from users
>> that I can't fix because of our ancient x11 stack.
To add some context the feature that I am asking for is workin
On Wed, 2014-06-11 at 17:19 +0100, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> On Qua, 2014-06-11 at 12:09 -0400, Adam Jackson wrote:
> > On Wed, 2014-06-11 at 17:56 +0200, drago01 wrote:
> >
> > > Oh and xserver really .. I am the one that gets complaints from users
> > > that I can't fix because of our ancient x11
On Qua, 2014-06-11 at 12:09 -0400, Adam Jackson wrote:
> On Wed, 2014-06-11 at 17:56 +0200, drago01 wrote:
>
> > Oh and xserver really .. I am the one that gets complaints from users
> > that I can't fix because of our ancient x11 stack.
>
> I'm not intrinsically _opposed_ to rebasing X in F20.
On Wed, 2014-06-11 at 17:57 +0200, Jiri Eischmann wrote:
> Reindl Harald píše v St 11. 06. 2014 v 17:44 +0200:
> > Am 11.06.2014 17:41, schrieb Jiri Eischmann:
> > > +1, we've already skipped one release and we just can't delay
> > > significantly more. Fedora is known as a fast-moving distribution
On Wed, 2014-06-11 at 17:56 +0200, drago01 wrote:
> Oh and xserver really .. I am the one that gets complaints from users
> that I can't fix because of our ancient x11 stack.
I'm not intrinsically _opposed_ to rebasing X in F20. But it's not
something we've done in any previous Fedora, and ther
My personal opinion is that we ought to try not disrupting the release schedule.
If some features miss the release train, it could wait 6 monthq (and,
I disagree with dropping the whole server products).
Fedora.Next is a big change in our model, our priority is to release
F21 and get some feedbacks
Reindl Harald píše v St 11. 06. 2014 v 17:44 +0200:
> Am 11.06.2014 17:41, schrieb Jiri Eischmann:
> > +1, we've already skipped one release and we just can't delay
> > significantly more. Fedora is known as a fast-moving distribution. A
> > large portion of our user base is using Fedora just for t
On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 5:51 PM, drago01 wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 5:44 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>>
>> Am 11.06.2014 17:41, schrieb Jiri Eischmann:
>>> +1, we've already skipped one release and we just can't delay
>>> significantly more. Fedora is known as a fast-moving distribution. A
>>>
- Original Message -
> From: "Reindl Harald"
> To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2014 6:44:09 PM
> Subject: Re: Slipping F21
>
>
> Am 11.06.2014 17:41, schrieb Jiri Eischmann:
> > +1, we've already skipped one release
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
(Sorry for double-reply; forgot to copy both lists)
On 06/11/2014 10:56 AM, Kalev Lember wrote:
> On 06/11/2014 04:37 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>> I forgot to open a ticket over the last week, but the Server WG
>> has identified that completion o
On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 5:44 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
> Am 11.06.2014 17:41, schrieb Jiri Eischmann:
>> +1, we've already skipped one release and we just can't delay
>> significantly more. Fedora is known as a fast-moving distribution. A
>> large portion of our user base is using Fedora just for
- Original Message -
> From: "Richard Hughes"
> To: "Discussions about development for the Fedora desktop"
>
> Cc: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2014 6:28:06 PM
> Subject: Re: Slippi
Am 11.06.2014 17:41, schrieb Jiri Eischmann:
> +1, we've already skipped one release and we just can't delay
> significantly more. Fedora is known as a fast-moving distribution. A
> large portion of our user base is using Fedora just for that reason. Do
> we really want to make even more of them s
Kalev Lember píše v St 11. 06. 2014 v 16:56 +0200:
> On 06/11/2014 04:37 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> > I forgot to open a ticket over the last week, but the Server WG has
> > identified that completion of its core task (the Server Role API) is
> > likely to need a little extra time. This is a bl
On 11 June 2014 15:56, Kalev Lember wrote:
> With my Workstation WG hat on, I'd very much like to avoid pushing back
> the schedule. We already skipped one whole release; if we slip F21 it's
> going to negatively impact how users perceive the Workstation, and make
> it harder for Workstation devel
On 06/11/2014 04:37 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> I forgot to open a ticket over the last week, but the Server WG has
> identified that completion of its core task (the Server Role API) is
> likely to need a little extra time. This is a blocker to release, so
> we figured it would be best to ask F
29 matches
Mail list logo
