On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 04:51:42PM +, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 04:24:16PM +0100, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski
> wrote:
> > On Friday, 24 February 2017 at 15:31, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> > > On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 08:48:43AM -0500, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
>
On Mon, 2017-02-27 at 18:15 +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > * Mandating that all dependency changes in package updates in a stable
> > release MUST be mentioned in bodhi update release notes and justified.
>
> Why does the packager have to do this, when bodhi itself could read
> the before
On Mon, 27 Feb 2017 18:15:32 +
"Richard W.M. Jones" wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 10:53:01PM +0100, Dominik 'Rathann'
> Mierzejewski wrote:
> > Dear Fedora developers,
> > there have been a number of examples where an update in a stable
> > branch brought in new dependencies and in signifi
On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 10:53:01PM +0100, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
> Dear Fedora developers,
> there have been a number of examples where an update in a stable branch
> brought in new dependencies and in significant numbers. The most recent
> case was discussed on this list even today:
On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 04:24:16PM +0100, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
> On Friday, 24 February 2017 at 15:31, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 08:48:43AM -0500, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> > > On 23 February 2017 at 12:24, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski
> > > wrote
On Friday, 24 February 2017 at 17:28, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> On 24 February 2017 at 11:19, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
>
> >> You both sound as if you're thinking I'm totally against introducing new
> >> dependencies.
> >
> > No. I didn't take that to be your view at all. I am going more w
On 24 February 2017 at 11:19, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
>> You both sound as if you're thinking I'm totally against introducing new
>> dependencies.
>
> No. I didn't take that to be your view at all. I am going more with
> the fact that you ran into a wall, and then you decided to smash your
>
On 24 February 2017 at 10:24, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski
wrote:
> On Friday, 24 February 2017 at 15:31, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 08:48:43AM -0500, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
>> > On 23 February 2017 at 12:24, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski
>> > wrote:
>> > > On Th
On Friday, 24 February 2017 at 15:31, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 08:48:43AM -0500, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> > On 23 February 2017 at 12:24, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski
> > wrote:
> > > On Thursday, 23 February 2017 at 14:23, Neal Gompa wrote:
> >
> > > I have noth
On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 08:48:43AM -0500, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> On 23 February 2017 at 12:24, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski
> wrote:
> > On Thursday, 23 February 2017 at 14:23, Neal Gompa wrote:
>
> > I have nothing against delivering latest and greatest software to our
> > users and thi
On 23 February 2017 at 12:24, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski
wrote:
> On Thursday, 23 February 2017 at 14:23, Neal Gompa wrote:
> I have nothing against delivering latest and greatest software to our
> users and this proposal is not against that goal, either. However,
> package maintainers are no
On Thursday, 23 February 2017 at 14:23, Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 7:33 AM, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski
> wrote:
> > On Thursday, 23 February 2017 at 07:16, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> >> On 02/23/2017 02:23 AM, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
> >> > On Thursday, 23 February
On 02/23/2017 02:23 PM, Neal Gompa wrote:
On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 7:33 AM, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski
wrote:
On Thursday, 23 February 2017 at 07:16, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 02/23/2017 02:23 AM, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
On Thursday, 23 February 2017 at 00:08, Adam Williamson
On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 7:33 AM, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski
wrote:
> On Thursday, 23 February 2017 at 07:16, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>> On 02/23/2017 02:23 AM, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
>> > On Thursday, 23 February 2017 at 00:08, Adam Williamson wrote:
>> > > On Wed, 2017-02-22 at 2
On Thursday, 23 February 2017 at 07:16, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 02/23/2017 02:23 AM, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
> > On Thursday, 23 February 2017 at 00:08, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2017-02-22 at 22:53 +0100, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski
> > > wrote:
> > > > Dear Fedora d
On 02/23/2017 02:23 AM, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
On Thursday, 23 February 2017 at 00:08, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Wed, 2017-02-22 at 22:53 +0100, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski
wrote:
Dear Fedora developers,
there have been a number of examples where an update in a stable branch
b
On Thursday, 23 February 2017 at 00:08, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-02-22 at 22:53 +0100, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski
> wrote:
> > Dear Fedora developers,
> > there have been a number of examples where an update in a stable branch
> > brought in new dependencies and in significant numb
On Wed, 2017-02-22 at 22:53 +0100, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski
wrote:
> Dear Fedora developers,
> there have been a number of examples where an update in a stable branch
> brought in new dependencies and in significant numbers. The most recent
> case was discussed on this list even today:
> http
Dear Fedora developers,
there have been a number of examples where an update in a stable branch
brought in new dependencies and in significant numbers. The most recent
case was discussed on this list even today:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/BVU
19 matches
Mail list logo
