On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 02:26:27PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > Isn't bugzappers officially defunct? It does seem like a reasonable
> > enough policy, for whatever that's worth.
>
> Yeah, the group is. We can have an exciting debate about whether we
> consider that to mean the bug status work
On Tue, 2016-04-19 at 16:24 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 11:36:54AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> >
> > For the record, we do in fact have a policy on this:
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/BugStatusWorkFlow#Priority_and_Severity
> > I wouldn't exactly clai
On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 11:36:54AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> For the record, we do in fact have a policy on this:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/BugStatusWorkFlow#Priority_and_Severity
> I wouldn't exactly claim that it's universally followed, but it *is*
> there. I do still foll
On Tue, 2016-04-19 at 12:47 -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Apr 2016 11:36:54 -0700
> Adam Williamson wrote:
> >
> >
> > For the record, we do in fact have a policy on this:
> >
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/BugStatusWorkFlow#Priority_and_Severity
> >
> > I wouldn't exac
On Tue, 19 Apr 2016 11:36:54 -0700
Adam Williamson wrote:
>
> For the record, we do in fact have a policy on this:
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/BugStatusWorkFlow#Priority_and_Severity
>
> I wouldn't exactly claim that it's universally followed, but it *is*
> there. I do still f
On Tue, 2016-04-19 at 14:17 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 10:53:39AM -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > On Seg, 2016-04-18 at 23:54 +0300, Alexander Ploumistos wrote:
> > > >
> > > > It's been a little over two hours since I started fedora-review and
> > > > it se
On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 10:53:39AM -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > On Seg, 2016-04-18 at 23:54 +0300, Alexander Ploumistos wrote:
> > > It's been a little over two hours since I started fedora-review and
> > > it seems I'm hitting these two bugs:
> > > * dnf repoquery --resolve is extremely slow #127
On Ter, 2016-04-19 at 10:53 -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Apr 2016 01:20:51 +0100
> Sérgio Basto wrote:
>
> >
> > On Seg, 2016-04-18 at 23:54 +0300, Alexander Ploumistos wrote:
> > >
> > > It's been a little over two hours since I started fedora-review
> > > and
> > > it seems I'm hitt
On Tue, 19 Apr 2016 01:20:51 +0100
Sérgio Basto wrote:
> On Seg, 2016-04-18 at 23:54 +0300, Alexander Ploumistos wrote:
> > It's been a little over two hours since I started fedora-review and
> > it seems I'm hitting these two bugs:
> > * dnf repoquery --resolve is extremely slow #1279538
>
>
On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 10:59 AM, Christopher Meng wrote:
> On 4/17/16, Neal Gompa wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I'd like to take over maintenance of the surf package for Fedora.
>
> Good luck with the name collision...Someone asked me to rename it to
> surf-browser[1].
>
> [1]---https://bugzilla.redhat
On 4/17/16, Neal Gompa wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'd like to take over maintenance of the surf package for Fedora.
Good luck with the name collision...Someone asked me to rename it to
surf-browser[1].
[1]---https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=554101
--
Yours sincerely,
Christopher Meng
htt
On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 01:00:56PM -, Raphael Groner wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 01:20:51AM +0100, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> >
> > Actually simply specifying '-x Check OwnDirs' as an argument to any
> > fedora-review call also seems to work.
> >
> > Zbyszek
>
> Please explain how to valid
> On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 01:20:51AM +0100, Sérgio Basto wrote:
>
> Actually simply specifying '-x Check OwnDirs' as an argument to any
> fedora-review call also seems to work.
>
> Zbyszek
Please explain how to validate manually the ownership guidelines, without the
help from (slow) dnf repoque
On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 6:14 AM, Dmitrij S. Kryzhevich
wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 6:02 PM, Alexander Ploumistos
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I am a little confused by the beginning of the %install section, could
>>> you
>>> please explain the syntax of the first line?
>>> (%make_install INSTALL="insta
On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 6:02 PM, Alexander Ploumistos
wrote:
Well, after almost three hours, fedora-review came through.
I am a little confused by the beginning of the %install section, could you
please explain the syntax of the first line?
(%make_install INSTALL="install -p")
It essentially
On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 01:20:51AM +0100, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> On Seg, 2016-04-18 at 23:54 +0300, Alexander Ploumistos wrote:
> > It's been a little over two hours since I started fedora-review and
> > it seems I'm hitting these two bugs:
> > * dnf repoquery --resolve is extremely slow #1279538
>
On Seg, 2016-04-18 at 23:54 +0300, Alexander Ploumistos wrote:
> It's been a little over two hours since I started fedora-review and
> it seems I'm hitting these two bugs:
> * dnf repoquery --resolve is extremely slow #1279538
I already change priority and severity of #1279538 to urgent
> * fedor
On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 6:02 PM, Alexander Ploumistos
wrote:
> Well, after almost three hours, fedora-review came through.
>
> I am a little confused by the beginning of the %install section, could you
> please explain the syntax of the first line?
> (%make_install INSTALL="install -p")
>
It esse
Well, after almost three hours, fedora-review came through.
I am a little confused by the beginning of the %install section, could you
please explain the syntax of the first line?
(%make_install INSTALL="install -p")
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.or
On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 4:54 PM, Alexander Ploumistos
wrote:
> It's been a little over two hours since I started fedora-review and it seems
> I'm hitting these two bugs:
> * dnf repoquery --resolve is extremely slow #1279538
> * fedora-review queries too many times for same thing #1275275
>
> I'll
It's been a little over two hours since I started fedora-review and it
seems I'm hitting these two bugs:
* dnf repoquery --resolve is extremely slow #1279538
* fedora-review queries too many times for same thing #1275275
I'll try to stay up until it finishes and if that takes too long, I'll let
it
Alexander,
It should be fine now. I forgot to move it to the correct location. Silly me.
On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 3:15 AM, Alexander Ploumistos
wrote:
> Hi Neal,
>
> The link to the source rpm in rhbz seems broken.
> If nobody else comes forward by tonight, I'll pick up the review.
>
> Best Regar
Hi Neal,
The link to the source rpm in rhbz seems broken.
If nobody else comes forward by tonight, I'll pick up the review.
Best Regards
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
I've submitted a review request for unretiring surf:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1327911
Could someone spare some time to review?
On Sat, Apr 16, 2016 at 1:44 PM, Neal Gompa wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'd like to take over maintenance of the surf package for Fedora.
>
> --
> 真実はいつも一つ！/
Hello,
I'd like to take over maintenance of the surf package for Fedora.
--
真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
25 matches
Mail list logo
