On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 09:35:41AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> > You mentioned possibly shifting the GCC process a little bit earlier.
> > Is it possible to maybe do that as well here, to give a little more
> > breathing room? Maybe even not for 2018 but for beyond, as we intend to
> > keep to this sc
On 07/13/2017 09:27 AM, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 09:23:58AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
Likewise. We should keep this schedule in mind as we work our way
through stage3 into stage4. Ideally Marek would start the test builds
prior to the Christmas break, even if we
On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 09:23:58AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> >> Likewise. We should keep this schedule in mind as we work our way
> >> through stage3 into stage4. Ideally Marek would start the test builds
> >> prior to the Christmas break, even if we're still in stage3.
> >> We'll review on the 9t
On 07/13/2017 09:01 AM, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 03:14:24PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
>>> LGTM.
>> Likewise. We should keep this schedule in mind as we work our way
>> through stage3 into stage4. Ideally Marek would start the test builds
>> prior to the Christmas break, even i
On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 03:14:24PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> > LGTM.
> Likewise. We should keep this schedule in mind as we work our way
> through stage3 into stage4. Ideally Marek would start the test builds
> prior to the Christmas break, even if we're still in stage3.
>
> We'll review on the 9
On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 02:10:13PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> So, I guess I should set some more detailed expectations here. At least
> from my perspective on it.
Thanks Adam. I'm going to snip most of this but I read it all and will
think more about it too. None of this is easy stuff.
I do
On Wed, 2017-07-12 at 14:10 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> it's still *more
> or less* the case that people expect a Rawhide compose to succeed and
> sync every day
sorry, of course that should say "Rawhide and Branched".
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_
On 07/12/2017 02:54 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 04:45:56PM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 04:30:12PM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
>>> So, "one week earlier than last time" would be January 31st. (Or 30th?
>>> Depends if we want that on a Tuesday like
On Thu, 2017-07-06 at 21:15 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> First, there is gating from rel-eng and QA in progress here:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/NoMoreAlpha (Note that this is
> compose/validation gating, not the CI stuff we're also talking about
> separately.) That's key in keepin
On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 04:45:56PM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 04:30:12PM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> > So, "one week earlier than last time" would be January 31st. (Or 30th?
> > Depends if we want that on a Tuesday like everything else or Wednesday
> > like this time
On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 04:30:12PM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> So, "one week earlier than last time" would be January 31st. (Or 30th?
> Depends if we want that on a Tuesday like everything else or Wednesday
> like this time around, if it matters.) Is that enough to help? Let me
> rework it and l
On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 02:10:30PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> 2018-01-10 is way too early for a mass rebuild from GCC point of view,
> even if we perform the test mass rebuild over the Christmas break,
> there won't be enough time to analyze it and fix any GCC issues revealed
> during that time.
On 12 July 2017 at 10:15, Remi Collet wrote:
> Le 07/07/2017 à 03:15, Matthew Miller a écrit :
>
>> I took a look at the planned F27 schedule
>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/27/Schedule
>
> Less than 4 months between F26 and F27 ?
> Seriously ?
Yes, I realize a lot of people are waking
On 07/12/2017 06:10 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 09:36:28PM -0400, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
>> On 07/06/2017 09:15 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
>>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/28/Schedule
>>
>> I encourage Jeff Law and Jakub Jelinek to review these schedules
>> for comp
Le 07/07/2017 à 03:15, Matthew Miller a écrit :
> I took a look at the planned F27 schedule
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/27/Schedule
Less than 4 months between F26 and F27 ?
Seriously ?
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.o
On 07/12/2017 02:29 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 02:20:29PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
>>> 2018-01-10 is way too early for a mass rebuild from GCC point of view,
>>> even if we perform the test mass rebuild over the Christmas break,
>>> there won't be enough time to analyze
On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 02:20:29PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > 2018-01-10 is way too early for a mass rebuild from GCC point of view,
> > even if we perform the test mass rebuild over the Christmas break,
> > there won't be enough time to analyze it and fix any GCC issues revealed
> > during t
On 07/12/2017 02:10 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 09:36:28PM -0400, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
>> On 07/06/2017 09:15 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
>>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/28/Schedule
>>
>> I encourage Jeff Law and Jakub Jelinek to review these schedules
>> for comp
On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 09:36:28PM -0400, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> On 07/06/2017 09:15 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/28/Schedule
>
> I encourage Jeff Law and Jakub Jelinek to review these schedules
> for compiler related issues.
>
> This is just a perfuncto
Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> We need a GNOME 3.26 release.
Then push it as an update to F26 as is done with KDE Plasma releases.
Kevin Kofler
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists
On ti, 11 heinä 2017, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 6:56 PM, Kevin Kofler
wrote:
IMHO, if you absolutely want to stick to May/October dates, it may
make
sense to skip a release date as was done with F21 and go for a 9-month
cycle. The schedule as it stands now either WILL sl
On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 6:56 PM, Kevin Kofler
wrote:
IMHO, if you absolutely want to stick to May/October dates, it may
make
sense to skip a release date as was done with F21 and go for a 9-month
cycle. The schedule as it stands now either WILL slip, or almost all
the
planned features WILL ha
On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 8:36 PM, Carlos O'Donell
wrote:
I encourage Jeff Law and Jakub Jelinek to review these schedules
for compiler related issues.
I don't think we should adjust the schedule much (or even at all) for
the compiler. We scheduled F26 a month later than usual to accommodate
G
On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 09:36:28PM -0400, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> This is just a perfunctory review from the glibc perspective with
> regard to base ABI and API issues in this core runtime.
[...]
> Otherwise the schedules look sensible from a glibc perspective.
> We can drive new security, perform
On 07/06/2017 09:15 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/28/Schedule
I encourage Jeff Law and Jakub Jelinek to review these schedules
for compiler related issues.
This is just a perfunctory review from the glibc perspective with
regard to base ABI and API issues in
Matthew Miller wrote:
> I took a look at the planned F27 schedule
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/27/Schedule and sketched out
> what the same time periods would look like with a May target for F28,
> and then repeated again for F29, making very drafty preliminary
> schedules:
>
> https:
On Tue, Jul 11, 2017, at 03:49 PM, Jean-Baptiste Holcroft wrote:
> Le 11/07/2017 à 19:30, Colin Walters a écrit :
> > specific ones. And we get into a lot of interesting questions around
> > the intersection
> > of the languages and Workstation, depending on what gets installed by
> > default.
Le 11/07/2017 à 19:30, Colin Walters a écrit :
specific ones. And we get into a lot of interesting questions around
the intersection
of the languages and Workstation, depending on what gets installed by default.
can you please elaborate what you mean by languages in this particular
context? I
On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 01:30:32PM -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
> > Hopefully, by the time we are at F28, Modularity will provide a way for
> > us to offer faster streams for people who want them -- but let's also
> > focus on stable releases.
>
> But with Modularity, how much does it even make se
On Thu, Jul 6, 2017, at 09:15 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
> Hopefully, by the time we are at F28, Modularity will provide a way for
> us to offer faster streams for people who want them -- but let's also
> focus on stable releases.
But with Modularity, how much does it even make sense to talk abou
It's probably no surprise if you've ever heard me talk that I really
think hitting early May / late October is important for our release
cadence. Those specific dates aren't magic, but they avoid some big
public holidays, and the key thing is that if we're consistent with
landmarks, it makes planni
31 matches
Mail list logo
