Hi,
On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 12:47:25PM +0100, Phil Sutter wrote:
> So far my idea of maintaining Fedora's iproute package was to do full
> version updates only in Rawhide and backport patches selectively to
> stable versions on behalf of bug reports.
>
> But since stable versions indeed receive f
On 25 Mar 2016 03:05, "Andrew Clayton" wrote:
>
> On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 12:38:09 +, Peter Robinson wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 1:13 AM, Xose Vazquez Perez
> > wrote:
> > > Josh Boyer wrote:
> > >
> > >> There is no need to call this ridiculous or nonsense. There have
> > >> been valid
On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 12:38:09 +, Peter Robinson wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 1:13 AM, Xose Vazquez Perez
> wrote:
> > Josh Boyer wrote:
> >
> >> There is no need to call this ridiculous or nonsense. There have
> >> been valid reasons brought up in this very thread for being
> >> somewha
On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 10:34:46AM -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Mar 2016 20:42:24 +0100
> Phil Sutter wrote:
> ...snip...
>
> > So I will stick to my former plan of not rebasing iproute in stable
> > releases (unless there's good reason) but become open for feature
> > requests if there
On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 8:20 PM, Xose Vazquez Perez
wrote:
> Phil Sutter wrote:
>
>> So I will stick to my former plan of not rebasing iproute in stable
>> releases (unless there's good reason) but become open for feature
>> requests if there is valid need for it, a backport is feasible and it
>>
On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 1:13 AM, Xose Vazquez Perez
wrote:
> Josh Boyer wrote:
>
>> There is no need to call this ridiculous or nonsense. There have been
>> valid reasons brought up in this very thread for being somewhat
>> conservative. Please refrain from using language that makes the
>> conve
Josh Boyer wrote:
> There is no need to call this ridiculous or nonsense. There have been
> valid reasons brought up in this very thread for being somewhat
> conservative. Please refrain from using language that makes the
> conversation negative.
Please, stay on topic.
Could you please explain
On Mon, 14 Mar 2016 20:42:24 +0100
Phil Sutter wrote:
...snip...
> So I will stick to my former plan of not rebasing iproute in stable
> releases (unless there's good reason) but become open for feature
> requests if there is valid need for it, a backport is feasible and it
> doesn't interfere wi
Phil Sutter wrote:
> So I will stick to my former plan of not rebasing iproute in stable
> releases (unless there's good reason) but become open for feature
> requests if there is valid need for it, a backport is feasible and it
> doesn't interfere with core functionality. ACK?
Does iproute going
On 2016-03-14 21:42, Phil Sutter wrote:
...
So I will stick to my former plan of not rebasing iproute in stable
releases (unless there's good reason) but become open for feature
requests if there is valid need for it, a backport is feasible and it
doesn't interfere with core functionality. ACK
On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 01:07:11PM -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Mar 2016 16:27:42 +0100
> Phil Sutter wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 03:11:50PM +, Petr Pisar wrote:
> > > On 2016-03-14, Phil Sutter wrote:
> > > > Thanks for the explanation, although I honestly don't see how
On Mon, 14 Mar 2016 16:27:42 +0100
Phil Sutter wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 03:11:50PM +, Petr Pisar wrote:
> > On 2016-03-14, Phil Sutter wrote:
> > > Thanks for the explanation, although I honestly don't see how
> > > that could come to unison with the kernel updates applied to
> > >
On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 03:11:50PM +, Petr Pisar wrote:
> On 2016-03-14, Phil Sutter wrote:
> > Thanks for the explanation, although I honestly don't see how that could
> > come to unison with the kernel updates applied to stable versions. Any
> > new version could break existing functionality
On 2016-03-14, Phil Sutter wrote:
> Thanks for the explanation, although I honestly don't see how that could
> come to unison with the kernel updates applied to stable versions. Any
> new version could break existing functionality (although not intended),
> so that "should" seems to be key.
Yes.
On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 02:03:40PM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 01:36:38PM +0100, Phil Sutter wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 12:21:33PM +, James Hogarth wrote:
> > > On 14 March 2016 at 11:47, Phil Sutter wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > So f
On Mon, 2016-03-14 at 13:36 +0100, Phil Sutter wrote:
> While this certainly makes sense, I start to wonder what Fedora's
> understanding of 'stability' really is if it seems to not cover the
> packages (including kernel) it distributes. Does it cover only
> anything
> else, like e.g. installation
On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 01:36:38PM +0100, Phil Sutter wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 12:21:33PM +, James Hogarth wrote:
> > On 14 March 2016 at 11:47, Phil Sutter wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > So far my idea of maintaining Fedora's iproute package was to do full
> > > version updates onl
On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 12:21:33PM +, James Hogarth wrote:
> On 14 March 2016 at 11:47, Phil Sutter wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > So far my idea of maintaining Fedora's iproute package was to do full
> > version updates only in Rawhide and backport patches selectively to
> > stable versions on beh
On 14 March 2016 at 11:47, Phil Sutter wrote:
> Hi,
>
> So far my idea of maintaining Fedora's iproute package was to do full
> version updates only in Rawhide and backport patches selectively to
> stable versions on behalf of bug reports.
>
> But since stable versions indeed receive full kernel
Hi,
So far my idea of maintaining Fedora's iproute package was to do full
version updates only in Rawhide and backport patches selectively to
stable versions on behalf of bug reports.
But since stable versions indeed receive full kernel updates (not just
backported patches), there is an understan
20 matches
Mail list logo
