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):
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-infr
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.cfg/fedora_install.conf
GOTO EOL
https://git.fedorahosted.org
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
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 of f15 currently.
Potential ideas for bfo:
* keep the "experimenta
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
> select
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 fedora repositories work aswell and they
point to the mirrorli
confidential to a small group.
>
I plead innocent!
Scroll to bottom
http://boot.fedoraproject.org/faq
--
Regards,
Frank Murphy
UTF_8 Encoded
Friend of Fedora
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
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
At first glance, this new way of installation seems great for remote
installing: exactly what I was expecting for months.
However I have some problems using it on a 2006 IBM xServer.
After reading the BFO FAQ, I have searched for a website where to get
more help and/or report bugs, without succe
35 matches
Mail list logo
