On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 1:04 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Sir Gallantmon (ニール・ゴンパ) wrote:
> > Though, there are some instances where the prevailing opinion should be
> > ignored, when there is no solid evidence to back it up, e.g. Mono and the
> > like.
>
> Indeed, I also think defending freedom is i
On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 2:43 PM, Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
> I'd like to update the gpsd package to the latest version 2.94. If
> there will be no objections, probably sometimes next week.
>
> Unfortunately, there were non-trivial API changes since version 2.39
> that break most of the dependent pac
Author: mmaslano
Update of /cvs/pkgs/rpms/perl-Module-ScanDeps/devel
In directory cvs01.phx2.fedoraproject.org:/tmp/cvs-serv860
Modified Files:
perl-Module-ScanDeps.spec
Log Message:
- Mass rebuild with perl-5.12.0
Index: perl-Module-ScanDeps.spec
==
On 2 May 2010 15:51, mike cloaked wrote:
> I saw that there is an interesting ultra precise timing code being
> developed - to possibly supercede NTP:
> http://www.cubinlab.ee.unimelb.edu.au/tscclock/
> http://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=1773943
>
> Is this code being developed for Fedora at all?
On Mon, May 03, 2010 at 10:13:26AM +0100, Peter Robinson wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 2:43 PM, Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
> > Packages that currently use libgps.so.18:
> >
> > qtgpsc-0:0.2.3-6.fc12
> > kdebase-workspace-0:4.4.2-5.fc14
> > vfrnav-0:0.4-1.fc13
> > gpsdrive-0:2.10-0.5.pre7.fc13
> >
Author: mmaslano
Update of /cvs/pkgs/rpms/perl-Moose/devel
In directory cvs01.phx2.fedoraproject.org:/tmp/cvs-serv25474
Modified Files:
perl-Moose.spec
Log Message:
- Mass rebuild with perl-5.12.0
Index: perl-Moose.spec
==
On Monday 03 May 2010 02:20:51 Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Hi,
>
> You will have noticed by now that my FESCo term is about to expire, that
> the nomination period for FESCo just closed and that my name does not show
> up on the list of candidates. No, this is not an accident or negligence,
> the decisi
2010/5/3 Kevin Kofler :
> Hi,
>
> You will have noticed by now that my FESCo term is about to expire, that the
> nomination period for FESCo just closed and that my name does not show up on
> the
> list of candidates. No, this is not an accident or negligence, the decision
> not
> to run for anot
Hi Kevin,
On 3 May 2010 01:20, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> You will have noticed by now that my FESCo term is about to expire, that the
> nomination period for FESCo just closed and that my name does not show up on
> the
> list of candidates. No, this is not an accident or negligence, the decision
>
Compose started at Mon May 3 08:15:06 UTC 2010
Broken deps for i386
--
calibre-0.6.47-1.fc14.i686 requires libpodofo.so.0.6.99
evolution-couchdb-0.3.2-2.fc13.i686 requires libcouchdb-glib-1.0.so.1
ghc-cairo-devel-0.10
>
> Therefore, I will stay in office until the end of my term, but I will not be
> available for reelection. I would like to thank the people who voted for me
> last
> year for their support and apologize to those who would have liked to vote for
> me this time for not giving them this opportunity
Kevin, one way you might help for this election is add some questions to
the question that you think are important for voters to know about the
candidate.
So far only Paul and I have added questions, and I really think the
community needs to be more involved here.
As a reminder it's at:
https://fed
On Sun, May 02, 2010 at 07:02:23PM -0700, Henrique Junior wrote:
>Unfortunately, what I have seen over time is that Fedora is changing to
>something that worries me and that is getting less fun to contribute. I
>remember the time when I liked to say that fedora was the "voice of the
>
Wow,
Great work on Fedora 13.
I just installed F13 on my R61 Lenovo. It has the familiar feel that I
expect with fedora and the installer worked flawlessly and quickly, except
it didn't automatically pick up another Linux OS, so I added that in
manually to menu.lst
Once I installed flash and then
Compose started at Mon May 3 09:15:07 UTC 2010
Removed package paperbox
Summary:
Added Packages: 0
Removed Packages: 1
Modified Packages: 0
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Sir Gallantmon (ニール・ゴンパ) wrote:
> Wait, I thought libvdpau had a VA-API backend?
AFAIK, no, there's only the opposite (a VDPAU backend for VA-API).
And VA-API also has no implementation in Free drivers other than a proof of
concept for the intel driver which:
* only supports MPEG 2, no MPEG 4,
*
Kevin Kofler wrote:
> I do not wish to stand for such a committee anymore
Kevin, thank you for your attempts and for raising attention
on the difficulties you have faced.
If some of the time you save by not doing meetings will be
spent on additional excellent technical contributions of yours,
Christopher Brown wrote:
> On 2 May 2010 15:51, mike cloaked wrote:
>> I saw that there is an interesting ultra precise timing code being
>> developed - to possibly supercede NTP:
>> http://www.cubinlab.ee.unimelb.edu.au/tscclock/
>> http://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=1773943
>>
>> Is this code be
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=585336
Tom "spot" Callaway changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
Matthew Garrett wrote:
> The stable packages work is an extension of this. Even if we, as
> maintainers, have plenty of fun, that's pretty easily wiped out if even
> a small proportion of our users have to spend time fixing a system that
> a stable update has broken. And without users who enjoy usi
Greetings
Dan Williams posted updated NetworkManager packages for testing. These
packages are intended for both Fedora 13 and Fedora 12. The update is
available in updates-testing, and requires bodhi karma in order to make
Fedora 13.
Brave testers, please take a few minutes to install the app
On 3 May 2010 15:29, Roberto Ragusa wrote:
> Christopher Brown wrote:
>> On 2 May 2010 15:51, mike cloaked wrote:
>>> I saw that there is an interesting ultra precise timing code being
>>> developed - to possibly supercede NTP:
>>> http://www.cubinlab.ee.unimelb.edu.au/tscclock/
>>> http://queue.
On Mon, May 03, 2010 at 04:34:13PM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> You make it look as if I was out to break people's systems
Actually, I didn't intend to say anything about you. My point was that
any increased bureaucracy has not been generated with the intention to
reduce the amount of fun that
Author: mmaslano
Update of /cvs/pkgs/rpms/perl-MooseX-Params-Validate/devel
In directory cvs01.phx2.fedoraproject.org:/tmp/cvs-serv19050
Modified Files:
perl-MooseX-Params-Validate.spec
Log Message:
- Mass rebuild with perl-5.12.0
Index: perl-MooseX-Params-Validate.spec
===
Matthew Garrett wrote:
> My point was that
> any increased bureaucracy has not been generated with the intention to
> reduce the amount of fun that developers have.
Let me jump in just to say that I'm not a developer/packager, but it
was my intention to become a contributor for Fedora.
What scar
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 5:10 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Mon, May 03, 2010 at 04:34:13PM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>
>> You make it look as if I was out to break people's systems
>
> Actually, I didn't intend to say anything about you. My point was that
> any increased bureaucracy has not been
On Mon, 2010-05-03 at 02:20 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> But if you want to see the kind of change to FESCo I'd like to see,
> it'll take a faction of at least 5 people to make it happen.
Surely this is the point: if there are not sufficient candidates with a
particular point of view, that's hardl
I'm sorry you are unhappy.
I can only speak for myself here, but:
- I don't distrust our maintainers. I very much value the work they do
and without them we would have no Fedora. However, I also want to
help them do the right thing for our users (who I also would like to
see happy). I'm o
On Mon, 2010-05-03 at 14:01 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> [1] And I appreciate that I made a mistake with hal-storage in this
> cycle that caused inconvenience for people maintaining other spins, so
> I'm not going to claim any kind of perfection in this area
Which just adds reason to why we a
Matthew Garrett wrote:
> If updates cause regressions in functionality then that indicates that
> our update testing process failed. The answer to that is to fix the
> update testing process, not bypass it.
Your assumption there is that it is possible for a testing process to catch
ALL regression
Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-05-03 at 14:01 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> [1] And I appreciate that I made a mistake with hal-storage in this
>> cycle that caused inconvenience for people maintaining other spins, so
>> I'm not going to claim any kind of perfection in this area
>
> Which
On Mon, May 03, 2010 at 02:20:51AM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
[...]
Kevin, I was rooting for you, and I particularly agree with you on the
issues of trusting maintainers and "devolving" power down to packaging
groups and SIGs. It was very disheartening also to see so many votes
going N-to-1.
Ric
Alex Hudson wrote:
> I think it's a bit disingenuous to talk about prevailing opinion of the
> mailing list otherwise; to me a lot of the discussion looks an awful lot
> like a vocal minority
I think it's quite cheap to write off the mailing list consensus as a "vocal
minority" with no evidence f
On Sun, 2 May 2010 17:25:10 +0200
yersinia wrote:
> Would be interesting to have in Fedora something like this
>
> http://popcon.debian.org/
>
> ?
>
> Look interesting from a QA point of view.
It's been suggested many times before, but no one has really stepped
forward to champion it. ;)
Th
Once upon a time, Kevin Kofler said:
> Matthew Garrett wrote:
Can we PLEASE not rehash all of this again?
Thanks a lot Kevin; you showed a lot of class trying to stir up the same
arguments that you stirred up before. Maybe the reason you lost votes
is that a lot of people just don't agree with
Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> - I don't distrust our maintainers. I very much value the work they do
> and without them we would have no Fedora. However, I also want to
> help them do the right thing for our users (who I also would like to
> see happy). I'm open to ideas on how to reduce 'red tape' fo
On Mon, May 03, 2010 at 07:34:28PM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Why should we not call the GNOME spin, and the GNOME desktop in general, by
> its name? GNOME is just A desktop, it's NOT "the" desktop.
It's the desktop with the most development and integration work
performed in the distribution,
There were a few more problems with my previous patches. The console
was not able to handle some cases where we using a DN value as the value
in an RDN, in both the base console and in the ds-console packages.
Also, I moved a lot of DN handling code from the ds-console package
DSUtil into the b
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 8:00 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Kevin Kofler said:
>> Matthew Garrett wrote:
>
>
> Can we PLEASE not rehash all of this again?
Generally agreed.
> Maybe the reason you lost votes is that a lot of people just don't agree with
>you
Doesn't automatically m
On Mon, 2010-05-03 at 19:34 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Alex Hudson wrote:
> > I think it's a bit disingenuous to talk about prevailing opinion of the
> > mailing list otherwise; to me a lot of the discussion looks an awful lot
> > like a vocal minority
>
> I think it's quite cheap to write off t
>
> It's been suggested many times before, but no one has really stepped
> forward to champion it. ;)
>
> There is an rpm version being worked on by an OpenSUSE person:
>
> http://gitorious.org/opensuse/popcorn
>
> Something would need to be packaged, tested, etc.
>
> Then the problem becomes what
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 8:08 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Mon, May 03, 2010 at 07:34:28PM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>
>> Why should we not call the GNOME spin, and the GNOME desktop in general, by
>> its name? GNOME is just A desktop, it's NOT "the" desktop.
>
> It's the desktop with the most d
F-13 builds requiring libtool are now failing with
DEBUG util.py:256: libtool-2.2.6-18.fc13.x86_64 from build has depsolving
problems
DEBUG util.py:256:--> Missing Dependency: gcc = 4.4.3 is needed by package
libtool-2.2.6-18.fc13.x86_64 (build)
DEBUG util.py:256: Error: Missing Dependency
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 3:07 AM, Alex Hudson wrote:
> I think it's a bit disingenuous to talk about prevailing opinion of the
> mailing list otherwise; to me a lot of the discussion looks an awful lot
> like a vocal minority,
Be careful about meeting subjective opinion with differing subjective op
On Mon, May 03, 2010 at 02:30:54PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> F-13 builds requiring libtool are now failing with
>
> DEBUG util.py:256: libtool-2.2.6-18.fc13.x86_64 from build has depsolving
> problems
> DEBUG util.py:256:--> Missing Dependency: gcc = 4.4.3 is needed by
> package libtool-2.2.
Tom Lane wrote, at 05/04/2010 03:30 AM +9:00:
> F-13 builds requiring libtool are now failing with
>
> DEBUG util.py:256: libtool-2.2.6-18.fc13.x86_64 from build has depsolving
> problems
> DEBUG util.py:256:--> Missing Dependency: gcc = 4.4.3 is needed by
> package libtool-2.2.6-18.fc13.x8
Am Montag, den 03.05.2010, 14:30 -0400 schrieb Tom Lane:
> F-13 builds requiring libtool are now failing with
>
> DEBUG util.py:256: libtool-2.2.6-18.fc13.x86_64 from build has depsolving
> problems
> DEBUG util.py:256:--> Missing Dependency: gcc = 4.4.3 is needed by
> package libtool-2.2.6
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 10:00 AM, Chris Adams wrote:
> Thanks a lot Kevin; you showed a lot of class trying to stir up the same
> arguments that you stirred up before. Maybe the reason you lost votes
> is that a lot of people just don't agree with you; pouting about that
> won't help anything.
Th
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 2:02 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>> - I read this list every day, and am very mindful of feedback from
>> developers. Any communication media is good, IMHO. My mailbox is also
>> always open. I think many become discouraged with the mailing list
>> the
Jakub Jelinek writes:
> gcc-4.4.4-1.fc13 has just been tagged temporarily into dist-f13-override
> so that new libtool could be built. Likely you tried to built during
> that short window or NewRepo has been too slow after it has been untagged
> from dist-f13-override already.
I see. It seems l
On Sun, May 2, 2010 at 6:20 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
".
> - The prevailing opinion of the electorate of Fedora contributors keeps
> getting ignored. Feedback on the Fedora devel mailing list is never seen as
> in any way binding, it's often dismissed as noise or "trolling". The
> predomin
On Mon, 2010-05-03 at 19:20 +0100, Athmane Madjoudj wrote:
> >
> > It's been suggested many times before, but no one has really stepped
> > forward to champion it. ;)
> >
> > There is an rpm version being worked on by an OpenSUSE person:
> >
> > http://gitorious.org/opensuse/popcorn
> >
> > Somethi
Am Montag, den 03.05.2010, 11:52 -0600 schrieb Kevin Fenzi:
> On Sun, 2 May 2010 17:25:10 +0200
> yersinia wrote:
>
> > Would be interesting to have in Fedora something like this
> >
> > http://popcon.debian.org/
> >
> > ?
> >
> > Look interesting from a QA point of view.
>
> It's been sugges
On Sun, May 2, 2010 at 7:25 AM, yersinia wrote:
> Look interesting from a QA point of view.
How exactly is this interesting from a QA pov in Fedora? Smolt
profiles I can understand being useful for QA because it gives us some
ability to look for commonalities when troubleshooting hardware
proble
On 2010-05-03 09:25:06 PM, Thomas Spura wrote:
> Wouldn't it be easier to let MirrorManager do that?
> This way each mirror can save a counter per package and publish them
> statically on the server side. To get a total amount of the data, all
> counter files from all servers needs to be collected
Hi,
Not sure on which package I need to bugzilla this under. I have a
feeling it should be NetworkManager, but I'd like to check as it may be
down to a PolicyKit failure (or even dbus).
My laptop is not firing up the wireless network. When I try and bring it
up from the command line I'm getting
Mamoru Tasaka writes:
> $ TZ=UTC koji list-tag-history --build=gcc-4.4.4-1.fc13
> Sat May 1 00:57:24 2010: Tagged gcc-4.4.4-1.fc13 with
> dist-f13-updates-candidate [still active]
> Mon May 3 15:58:06 2010: Tagged gcc-4.4.4-1.fc13 with dist-f13-override
> Mon May 3 17:37:31 2010: Untagged gcc-
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 9:27 PM, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
> On Sun, May 2, 2010 at 7:25 AM, yersinia wrote:
>> Look interesting from a QA point of view.
>
> How exactly is this interesting from a QA pov in Fedora? Smolt
> profiles I can understand being useful for QA because it gives us some
> ability
On Mon, May 03, 2010 at 03:35:44PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Mamoru Tasaka writes:
> > $ TZ=UTC koji list-tag-history --build=gcc-4.4.4-1.fc13
> > Sat May 1 00:57:24 2010: Tagged gcc-4.4.4-1.fc13 with
> > dist-f13-updates-candidate [still active]
> > Mon May 3 15:58:06 2010: Tagged gcc-4.4.4-1.f
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 9:27 PM, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
> On Sun, May 2, 2010 at 7:25 AM, yersinia
> wrote:
> > Look interesting from a QA point of view.
>
> How exactly is this interesting from a QA pov in Fedora? Smolt
> profiles I can understand being useful for QA because it gives us some
> abi
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 12:03 PM, Thomas Janssen
wrote:
> - Superb information for us packagers if and how much (of course not
> the correct value) users use the software i package
It may or may not be superb information...but you haven't told me how
collecting this information is helpful to the u
Jakub Jelinek writes:
> On Mon, May 03, 2010 at 03:35:44PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> BTW, it's now two hours later and gcc 4.4.4 is still in the buildroot.
>> There is no newrepo task running for F-13, and no evidence that one has
>> been launched recently. Perhaps an untag event fails to force a
Jakub Jelinek wrote, at 05/04/2010 05:17 AM +9:00:
> On Mon, May 03, 2010 at 03:35:44PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Mamoru Tasaka writes:
>>> $ TZ=UTC koji list-tag-history --build=gcc-4.4.4-1.fc13
>>> Sat May 1 00:57:24 2010: Tagged gcc-4.4.4-1.fc13 with
>>> dist-f13-updates-candidate [still acti
On Mon, 2010-05-03 at 20:31 +0100, Paul wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Not sure on which package I need to bugzilla this under. I have a
> feeling it should be NetworkManager, but I'd like to check as it may be
> down to a PolicyKit failure (or even dbus).
It could well be NM. Can you grab your /var/log/messa
Mamoru Tasaka wrote, at 05/04/2010 05:31 AM +9:00:
> Well, it seems usually koji runs 3 newrepo tasks at the same time, but
> two of them were hanging for 9 hours (for dist-rawhide and dist-rawhide)
small correction: for dist-rawhide and for dist-f14
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproj
Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FESCo
meeting tomorrow at 19:00UTC (3pm EDT) in #fedora-meeting on
irc.freenode.net.
= Followups =
#351 Create a policy for updates - status report on implementation
= New Business =
#371 Change package owner of ddclient (as "subho
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 12:19 PM, yersinia wrote:
> Sure, I can try. If one software is used many time from many user, directly
> or indirectly, and it have not such many problems (e.g bug open on bugzilla
> for example ), well this could guide to the decision of the goodness of the
> software a
On Mon, 2010-05-03 at 18:45 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> here will
> ALWAYS be a need for a way to fasttrack regression fixes!
The proposals I've seen include a way to fasttrack. That is you get the
required karma between the time the update was submitted to bodhi, and
the time a bodhi admin st
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 10:21 PM, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
> On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 12:03 PM, Thomas Janssen
> wrote:
>> - Superb information for us packagers if and how much (of course not
>> the correct value) users use the software i package
>
> It may or may not be superb information...but you have
On Mon, 2010-05-03 at 18:51 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>
> Except karma requirements (which were in force due to the critical path
> process) did NOT prevent this particular regression, nor would a "1 week
> minimum in testing" requirement have prevented it (the update spent 8 days
> in testing
On Mon, 2010-05-03 at 14:54 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Jakub Jelinek writes:
> > gcc-4.4.4-1.fc13 has just been tagged temporarily into dist-f13-override
> > so that new libtool could be built. Likely you tried to built during
> > that short window or NewRepo has been too slow after it has been unt
Thomas Janssen wrote:
> Good question about on or off by default. To make sense it should be
> on by default.
NO! Popcon may have its uses, and I actually have it enabled on my Debian
boxes, but it *must* be strictly opt-in. If it were on by default it would be
spyware, and I do *not* want an op
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 1:06 PM, Thomas Janssen
wrote:
> To make sense it should be on by default.
Good luck with that. I strongly suggest that any usage which only
makes sense with "on by default" is not a usage you can rely on as a
strawman.
The popularity application idea would be a compellin
Jesse Keating wrote:
> The proposals I've seen include a way to fasttrack. That is you get the
> required karma between the time the update was submitted to bodhi, and
> the time a bodhi admin starts the push. In such cases your update would
> go directly to stable. How is that not a fast track?
Am Montag, den 03.05.2010, 23:30 +0200 schrieb Björn Persson:
> Thomas Janssen wrote:
> > Good question about on or off by default. To make sense it should be
> > on by default.
>
> NO! Popcon may have its uses, and I actually have it enabled on my Debian
> boxes, but it *must* be strictly opt-in
On Mon, 2010-05-03 at 23:49 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Jesse Keating wrote:
> > The proposals I've seen include a way to fasttrack. That is you get the
> > required karma between the time the update was submitted to bodhi, and
> > the time a bodhi admin starts the push. In such cases your updat
Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> As I have pointed out in both public and private emails to you
[snip]
Why are you telling all this stuff to me? I'm ALREADY complaining about our
processes being undemocratic. The points you make are very real. But I don't
agree with you that the solution has to be
On Mon, 2010-05-03 at 13:32 -0800, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
> The popularity application idea would be a compelling user
> benefit..but popcon as constructed really doesn't integrate well
> enough to give users useful "popular" application suggestions in a way
> that makes sense. We'd need something t
On 5/4/2010 12:57 AM, Jesse Keating wrote:
> Testing takes time, lets give up? Seriously? Pushes happen about once
> every 24 hours, do you really say it'll take longer than 24 hours to get
> a couple people to test the issue and confirm that your fix does indeed
> fix the issue, and doesn't seem
On Tue, 2010-05-04 at 01:27 +0300, shmuel siegel wrote:
> At the risk of putting words into Kevin's mouth, I think that you just
> made his point. I'd be very surprised if Kevin couldn't get x number of
> people to say yes to a fix that he considered urgent. This might confirm
> that the fix had
Thomas Spura wrote:
> I don't think it's spyware, if it's enabled by default on the server
> side, do you? e.g. sourceforge does the same with their statistics
> counter (or any other web counter online).
No, extracting download statistics from web server logs isn't spyware. Spyware
is software t
On Tue, 2010-05-04 at 00:01 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> In some cases, the people to represent are even our users, e.g. they asked
> for "adventurous" updates, so why does the Board decide on a "vision" for
> conservative updates? Are people that set on their personal preference that
> they can
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 4:01 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
>> As I have pointed out in both public and private emails to you
> [snip]
>
> Why are you telling all this stuff to me? I'm ALREADY complaining about our
> processes being undemocratic. The points you make are very
2010/5/4 Stephen John Smoogen :
> On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 4:01 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
>>> As I have pointed out in both public and private emails to you
>> [snip]
>>
>> Why are you telling all this stuff to me? I'm ALREADY complaining about our
>> processes being und
hi,
troubles with the i18n patch.
http://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=566482#c9
-thanks-
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On Tue, May 04, 2010 at 00:01:24 +0200,
Kevin Kofler wrote:
>
> Why are you telling all this stuff to me? I'm ALREADY complaining about our
> processes being undemocratic. The points you make are very real. But I don't
> agree with you that the solution has to be some formal framework. If our
Jesse Keating wrote:
> Please stop banding about the forum poll as if it were some sort of
> scientific measure with meaningful results one could use as a basis for
> decision making.
It's the best data we have.
> It was none of that. All it gave us was info we already had. Some users
> would l
On 05/03/2010 10:30 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
> The point here is that Kevin isn't perfect. As such, he can make
> mistakes, just like all of us. By asking for a couple karma nods from
> different people, we increase the chance of catching some of those
> mistakes. Since the delay exists anyway,
On Tue, 04 May 2010 01:58:34 +0200
Kevin Kofler wrote:
> The poll told us an approximate proportion, which is so far from
> 50-50 (72.13%) that we clearly have a statistically significant
> majority, also considering the sample size N=183.
I'm not sure what the poll was exactly, but a sample s
On Tue, 2010-05-04 at 01:58 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Jesse Keating wrote:
> > Please stop banding about the forum poll as if it were some sort of
> > scientific measure with meaningful results one could use as a basis for
> > decision making.
>
> It's the best data we have.
Bad data is worse
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 8:22 PM, Bernd Stramm wrote:
> On Tue, 04 May 2010 01:58:34 +0200
> Kevin Kofler wrote:
>
>
>> The poll told us an approximate proportion, which is so far from
>> 50-50 (72.13%) that we clearly have a statistically significant
>> majority, also considering the sample size N=1
On Mon, 3 May 2010 22:04:11 -0400
Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
> On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 8:22 PM, Bernd Stramm wrote:
> > On Tue, 04 May 2010 01:58:34 +0200
> > Kevin Kofler wrote:
> >
> >
> >> The poll told us an approximate proportion, which is so far from
> >> 50-50 (72.13%) that we clearly have a stat
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 10:01 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-05-04 at 01:58 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> Jesse Keating wrote:
>> The poll told us an approximate proportion, which is so far from 50-50
>> (72.13%) that we clearly have a statistically significant majority, also
>> considering
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 5:58 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Jesse Keating wrote:
>> Please stop banding about the forum poll as if it were some sort of
>> scientific measure with meaningful results one could use as a basis for
>> decision making.
>
> It's the best data we have.
And the statisticians I
Once upon a time, Orcan Ogetbil said:
> The statistic talks. It doesn't only talk. It yells. Ignoring this
> test statistic in favor of the large pool of imaginary users, who
> supposedly think in the complete other direction, is not only
> non-scientific, stupid., but also self-conflicting.
You
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 10:26 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Orcan Ogetbil said:
>> The statistic talks. It doesn't only talk. It yells. Ignoring this
>> test statistic in favor of the large pool of imaginary users, who
>> supposedly think in the complete other direction, is not only
>>
On Mon, 2010-05-03 at 22:37 -0400, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
> On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 10:26 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
> > Once upon a time, Orcan Ogetbil said:
> >> The statistic talks. It doesn't only talk. It yells. Ignoring this
> >> test statistic in favor of the large pool of imaginary users, who
> >>
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 10:45 PM, Dave Airlie wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-05-03 at 22:37 -0400, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
>> On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 10:26 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
>> > Once upon a time, Orcan Ogetbil said:
>> >> The statistic talks. It doesn't only talk. It yells. Ignoring this
>> >> test statist
On 05/03/2010 11:12 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-05-03 at 18:51 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>>
>> Except karma requirements (which were in force due to the critical path
>> process) did NOT prevent this particular regression, nor would a "1 week
>> minimum in testing" requirement have pre
On Tue, 2010-05-04 at 05:01 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>
> You are presuming a bug
> * affects many people
> * is reproducable by many people
> * has "user visible" impacts
> * users are volunteering to provide feedback
>
> These presumptions are all wrong and do not apply.
In many cases thes
1 - 100 of 111 matches
Mail list logo
