On 03/02/2012 08:36 AM, Xibo Ning wrote:
> Hi all,
> Just as the subject. I did not find this perl module Pod::Plainer.
> This module is required by LSB dist test for LSB 4.1. But I did
> not find in LSB DB tables.
>
LSB should be fixed. Pod::Plainer was obsoleted by the Perl upstream:
http://sear
On Mar 1, 2012, at 10:53 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-03-01 at 17:43 -0500, Adam Jackson wrote:
>> On Thu, 2012-03-01 at 16:39 -0500, Daniel J Walsh wrote:
>>
>>> I believe Fedora 17 has an add user to admin group checkbox when
>>> adding the initial user, not sure if it is checked
# F17 Beta Blocker Review meeting #1
# Date: 2012-03-02
# Time: 17:00 UTC [1] (12:00 EST, 09:00 PST)
# Location: #fedora-bugzappers on irc.freenode.net
It's that time again! The first F17 beta blocker bug review meeting
will be this Friday at 17:00 UTC in #fedora-bugzappers. We'll be
running throu
I am a feature owner for a feature that involves components in the
hundreds and is heavily depended on maintainers responsiveness.
For me to start enacting the non responsive maintainers policy is a
tremendous work thus I'm wondering if there is something preventing us
from automating the non
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=799237
Petr Pisar changed:
What|Removed |Added
On 03/02/2012 11:20 AM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> I am a feature owner for a feature that involves components in the
> hundreds and is heavily depended on maintainers responsiveness.
>
> For me to start enacting the non responsive maintainers policy is a
> tremendous work thus I'm wondering
On 03/02/2012 11:02 AM, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
Ok, so you'll automatically start non-responsive maintainer process,
because maintainer didn't work on a one bug. But he might be working on
different component for whole month. He might be working on a new
upstream release and not paying attention
Dne 2.3.2012 12:02, Marcela Mašláňová napsal(a):
On 03/02/2012 11:20 AM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
I am a feature owner for a feature that involves components in the
hundreds and is heavily depended on maintainers responsiveness.
For me to start enacting the non responsive maintainers poli
On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 2:12 AM, Chris Murphy wrote:
>
> On Mar 1, 2012, at 10:53 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 2012-03-01 at 17:43 -0500, Adam Jackson wrote:
> >> On Thu, 2012-03-01 at 16:39 -0500, Daniel J Walsh wrote:
> >>
> >>> I believe Fedora 17 has an add user to admin group check
Here is a weird example of how Fedora currenty handles some permission
procedures. I created a standard user account (no admin rights) and I'm
trying to install a package. When I press apply I'm prompted to enter a
password. Since I have no admin rights I would expect to be asked for the
root passw
On 03/02/2012 12:09 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>
> Am 02.03.2012 12:02, schrieb Marcela Mašláňová:
>> Ok, so you'll automatically start non-responsive maintainer process,
>> because maintainer didn't work on a one bug. But he might be working on
>> different component for whole month. He might be
- Original Message -
> From: "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"
> To: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
>
> Sent: Friday, March 2, 2012 12:20:10 PM
> Subject: Automating the NonResponsiveMaintainers policy
>
> I am a feature owner for a feature that involves components in the
> hundred
On 03/02/2012 12:12 PM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> On 03/02/2012 11:02 AM, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
>> Ok, so you'll automatically start non-responsive maintainer process,
>> because maintainer didn't work on a one bug. But he might be working on
>> different component for whole month. He mig
On 03/02/2012 12:52 PM, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
>
>
> - Original Message -
>> From: "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"
>> To: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
>>
>> Sent: Friday, March 2, 2012 12:20:10 PM
>> Subject: Automating the NonResponsiveMaintainers policy
>>
>> I am a featur
On 03/02/2012 11:16 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Actually I support such initiative. We have also filled a few bugs
against Ruby components which needs some love due to Ruby update and
it happens that we have no response. If there would be tool that
reports "yes, the maintainer was active in some
- Original Message -
> From: "Marcela Mašláňová"
> To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Sent: Friday, March 2, 2012 1:57:11 PM
> Subject: Re: Automating the NonResponsiveMaintainers policy
>
> On 03/02/2012 12:52 PM, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
> >
> >
> > - Original Message -
>
On 02/03/12 12:52, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
>
> If a maintainer doesn't respond to a bug repord with the status
> new in a week - give commit rights to the reporter in pkgdb
> so he/she can fix it himself.
I kind a' like this proposal. You're speaking of current package
maintainers getting comm
Dne 2.3.2012 12:56, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" napsal(a):
On 03/02/2012 11:16 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Actually I support such initiative. We have also filled a few bugs
against Ruby components which needs some love due to Ruby update and
it happens that we have no response. If there would be to
On 02/03/12 12:53, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
> I'm afraid we end up with more bureaucracy than we have now. I'm not
> against tracking some statistics, so you can look up who is active and
> probably will answer in few days, but I'd rather not use it for the
> unresponsive process.
>
> Marcela
I'm
On 03/02/2012 01:00 PM, Matthias Runge wrote:
> On 02/03/12 12:52, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
>>
>> If a maintainer doesn't respond to a bug repord with the status
>> new in a week - give commit rights to the reporter in pkgdb
>> so he/she can fix it himself.
> I kind a' like this proposal. You're
Dne 2.3.2012 12:52, Aleksandar Kurtakov napsal(a):
- Original Message -
From: "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"
To: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
Sent: Friday, March 2, 2012 12:20:10 PM
Subject: Automating the NonResponsiveMaintainers policy
I am a feature owner for a feature that
- Original Message -
> From: "Matthias Runge"
> To: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
>
> Sent: Friday, March 2, 2012 2:00:32 PM
> Subject: Re: Automating the NonResponsiveMaintainers policy
>
> On 02/03/12 12:52, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
> >
> > If a maintainer doesn't r
On 03/02/2012 11:47 AM, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
Some developers prefer ignore it until they have time. Why should I
write yes, yes, it's broken, I'll look at it next month. That's not
helping anyway.
I disagree it certainly does matter.
For example let's take these two [1] [2] bugs that are o
On 02/03/12 13:10, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
> What about bug reporter being unable to fix the mentioned bug?
Oh no. I'm mean unable to fix because of missing knowledge, not
unable because of missing commit rights.
I might file a bug against kernel, but I'm definitely not the right
person to patc
On 03/02/2012 02:00 PM, Matthias Runge wrote:
On 02/03/12 12:52, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
If a maintainer doesn't respond to a bug repord with the status
new in a week - give commit rights to the reporter in pkgdb
so he/she can fix it himself.
I kind a' like this proposal. You're speaking of
On Fri, 2012-03-02 at 05:21 -0600, Conan Kudo (ニール・ゴンパ) wrote:
> For printers, currently installing printers does not require superuser
> privileges, but managing those printers installed by that user does.
> Is it possible to make it so that printers installed by that user can
> be managed by the
On 03/02/2012 11:52 AM, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
So I would make a contra-proposal.
If a maintainer doesn't respond to a bug repord with the status new in a week -
give commit rights to the reporter in pkgdb so he/she can fix it himself.
I really think this is way more fare and people that t
- Original Message -
> From: "Matthias Runge"
> To: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
>
> Sent: Friday, March 2, 2012 2:05:07 PM
> Subject: Re: Automating the NonResponsiveMaintainers policy
>
> On 02/03/12 12:53, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
> > I'm afraid we end up with more b
On 03/02/2012 01:13 PM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> On 03/02/2012 11:47 AM, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
>> Some developers prefer ignore it until they have time. Why should I
>> write yes, yes, it's broken, I'll look at it next month. That's not
>> helping anyway.
>
> I disagree it certainly doe
- Original Message -
> From: "Matthias Runge"
> To: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
>
> Sent: Friday, March 2, 2012 2:15:51 PM
> Subject: Re: Automating the NonResponsiveMaintainers policy
>
> On 02/03/12 13:10, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
> > What about bug reporter being
On 03/02/2012 12:21 PM, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
Units again:)
Are you trying create some metrics because of units on whole
distribution? It simply won't fit to all groups.
No I'm only using units or rather the systemd migration process since
i'm most familiar with it.
( been doing it for 3 r
- Original Message -
> From: "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"
> To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Sent: Friday, March 2, 2012 2:16:28 PM
> Subject: Re: Automating the NonResponsiveMaintainers policy
>
> On 03/02/2012 11:52 AM, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
> > So I would make a contra-proposal.
>
On 02/03/12 13:06, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
> Yes, I would be afraid that reporters won't be able to fix it
> properly. Even if I'm a provenpackager, I don't commit into
> packages not related to mine.
Yes, I guess, that's a more general problem. But since we have proven
packagers, they might jump
- Original Message -
> From: "Aleksandar Kurtakov"
> To: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
>
> Sent: Friday, March 2, 2012 2:27:04 PM
> Subject: Re: Automating the NonResponsiveMaintainers policy
>
>
>
> - Original Message -
> > From: "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"
> > T
On 02/03/12 13:24, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
> Well, the whole idea came in a second so someone should refine it.
> FWIW the period should be long enough - in my eyes not less than a
> months so if noone responded in like 3 months the fix would no longer
> be at least quick. And as always we trust
On 03/02/2012 12:27 PM, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
Well, Fedora ships packages. I might be stupid but would someone please explain
me how can one deliver fixed/improved packages to users without do at least a
bit of packaging work. I don't see a way this to happen.
Spec files are no rocket sc
- Original Message -
> From: "Matthias Runge"
> To: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
>
> Sent: Friday, March 2, 2012 2:34:11 PM
> Subject: Re: Automating the NonResponsiveMaintainers policy
>
> On 02/03/12 13:24, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
> > Well, the whole idea came in a
Dne 2.3.2012 13:19, Aleksandar Kurtakov napsal(a):
- Original Message -
From: "Matthias Runge"
To: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
Sent: Friday, March 2, 2012 2:05:07 PM
Subject: Re: Automating the NonResponsiveMaintainers policy
On 02/03/12 12:53, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
On 03/02/2012 12:03 PM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Are the changes enforced? I don't think so ...
Interesting which begs the question to which purpose do the guideline
serve if no one is actually making sure that it's being followed?
JBG
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://
On 02/03/12 13:16, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> Not to mention bug reporter not necessarily understanding the full
> consequences of a change - change that might look trivial but has
> world-breaking effects.
>
> And FWIW, four week vacations are common in this part of the world...
>
> - Panu -
A
I've orphaned buoh and libsoup22 in all active branches of Fedora. Buoh
is a GTK online comics reader that I haven't used in forever and
libsoup22 is a compat version of libsoup required for buoh. I don't
think any packages other than buoh require libsoup22, but I could be
wrong.
Buoh's upstream
- Original Message -
> From: "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"
> To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Sent: Friday, March 2, 2012 2:34:10 PM
> Subject: Re: Automating the NonResponsiveMaintainers policy
>
> On 03/02/2012 12:27 PM, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
> > Well, Fedora ships packages. I might
On 02/03/12 13:37, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
> I really have no idea nor I would have the time to deal with such
> thing anytime soon as it will also require development work if
> accepted. The current process works fine for me. I just wanted to
> show that there are better way than throwing out p
- Original Message -
> From: "Vít Ondruch"
> To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Sent: Friday, March 2, 2012 2:37:53 PM
> Subject: Re: Automating the NonResponsiveMaintainers policy
>
> Dne 2.3.2012 13:19, Aleksandar Kurtakov napsal(a):
> >
> > - Original Message -
> >> From: "M
On 2012-03-01, Michal Schmidt wrote:
> Dne 1.3.2012 17:52, Petr Pisar napsal(a):
>> where to get public key for verifying RPM signatures.
>
> The keys are at: https://fedoraproject.org/keys
>
And F16 primary key (A82BA4B7) is signed by... 1 guy. Awesome.
And ISO images propagated on Fedora web pa
On 03/02/2012 12:37 PM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Don't be so touchy please. The truth is somewhere in between. There
are maintainers who do not respond for whatever reason and there are
others who are solving reported issue in a minute. I don't believe
that it was meant to threaten anybody. You rea
Dne 2.3.2012 13:47, Aleksandar Kurtakov napsal(a):
- Original Message -
From: "Vít Ondruch"
To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Sent: Friday, March 2, 2012 2:37:53 PM
Subject: Re: Automating the NonResponsiveMaintainers policy
Dne 2.3.2012 13:19, Aleksandar Kurtakov napsal(a):
- Ori
- Original Message -
> From: "Vít Ondruch"
> To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Sent: Friday, March 2, 2012 2:54:52 PM
> Subject: Re: Automating the NonResponsiveMaintainers policy
>
> Dne 2.3.2012 13:47, Aleksandar Kurtakov napsal(a):
> >
> > - Original Message -
> >> From: "V
- Original Message -
> From: "Aleksandar Kurtakov"
> To: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
>
> Sent: Friday, March 2, 2012 3:08:26 PM
> Subject: Re: Automating the NonResponsiveMaintainers policy
>
>
>
> - Original Message -
> > From: "Vít Ondruch"
> > To: devel@l
Il giorno ven, 02/03/2012 alle 14.41 +0200, Jonathan Dieter ha scritto:
> I've orphaned buoh and libsoup22 in all active branches of Fedora. Buoh
> is a GTK online comics reader that I haven't used in forever and
> libsoup22 is a compat version of libsoup required for buoh. I don't
> think any p
* Dan Williams
> 0.9.4 snapshots do not require both methods to complete (with either
> success or failure) before saying the machine is connected. Thus if
> IPv4 completes first, NM will say it's connected, and continue IPv6 in
> the background. And vice versa.
That is true, however, if IPv6 c
On 03/02/2012 12:41 PM, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
Nope, if you are a packager already and you have a unit file you want to push
in my package just ask me about commit rights via pkgdb and a mail explaining
it and I'll definetely approve your request and I'm pretty sure that a number
of packag
Daniel J Walsh wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 02/29/2012 04:03 PM, Scott Doty wrote:
>> On 02/29/2012 08:46 AM, David Malcolm wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2012-02-29 at 07:02 -0500, Neal Becker wrote:
I think he's got a point
http://www.osnews.com/story/256
Hi,
there is F17 espeak bug:
http://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=799137
requesting drop of portaudio from espeak to lower the
number of deps. Is anybody against?
Thanks & regards
Jaroslav
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinf
Hi,
* Adam Williamson
> If there's a bug against this, it could be nominated as a Beta or Final
> blocker.
Here's a few:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=538499
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=552099
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=591630
https://bugzilla.redh
On 03/02/2012 12:12 PM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
On 03/02/2012 11:02 AM, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
Ok, so you'll automatically start non-responsive maintainer process,
because maintainer didn't work on a one bug. But he might be working on
different component for whole month. He might be wo
On 03/02/2012 08:43 AM, Nicola Soranzo wrote:
> Il giorno ven, 02/03/2012 alle 14.41 +0200, Jonathan Dieter ha scritto:
>> I've orphaned buoh and libsoup22 in all active branches of Fedora. Buoh
>> is a GTK online comics reader that I haven't used in forever and
>> libsoup22 is a compat version o
On 03/02/2012 01:34 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
I other words, all is proposal would be doing is to cause bureaucratic
churn.
Well it only causes bureaucratic churn or otherwise inconvenience for
non responding maintainers as in maintainers that do not respond to a
report in timely manner + t
https://fedorahosted.org/389/ticket/305
https://fedorahosted.org/389/attachment/ticket/305/0001-Ticket-305-Certain-CMP-operations-hang-or-cause-ns-s.patch
Thanks,
Mark
--
389-devel mailing list
389-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-devel
On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 05:36, Nikos Roussos wrote:
> Here is a weird example of how Fedora currenty handles some permission
> procedures. I created a standard user account (no admin rights) and I'm
> trying to install a package. When I press apply I'm prompted to enter a
> password. Since I have
On Thu, 2012-03-01 at 21:53 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
>
> In case anyone's wondering what that actually does, here's what I can
> figure out.
>
> What it does directly is to add the user to the 'wheel' group. I'm not
> sure what all the consequences of that are, but there's two I've been
> a
The kernel has several widespread bugs that are affecting all releases,
that are impacting a lot of users.
* Hibernation
There are so many bugs here it's hard to know where to begin.
- We have cases where it fails to sleep, or resumes instantly.
- There are cases where it looks to be workin
On Fri, Mar 02, 2012 at 12:37:40PM +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> On 03/02/2012 12:03 PM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> >
> >Are the changes enforced? I don't think so ...
>
> Interesting which begs the question to which purpose do the guideline
> serve if no one is actually making sure that it's
On 03/02/2012 03:21 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
Process looks like this:
* Guidelines updated
* Someone notices that the package does not follow the guidelines (Note that
this step does not require that the Guidelines were updated... the
packaging bug could have been missed during review or
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=768846
Joe Orton changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
On Fri, 2012-03-02 at 09:07 -0500, Jaroslav Skarvada wrote:
> Hi,
>
> there is F17 espeak bug:
> http://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=799137
>
> requesting drop of portaudio from espeak to lower the
> number of deps. Is anybody against?
I'm very much in favor of it - we don't want both pul
On Fri, Mar 02, 2012 at 12:16:28 +,
"\"Jóhann B. Guðmundsson\"" wrote:
> On 03/02/2012 11:52 AM, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
> >So I would make a contra-proposal.
> >
> >If a maintainer doesn't respond to a bug repord with the status new in a
> >week - give commit rights to the reporter in p
On Thu, 2012-03-01 at 20:49 -0500, Daniel J Walsh wrote:
> On 03/01/2012 05:43 PM, Adam Jackson wrote:
> > On Thu, 2012-03-01 at 16:39 -0500, Daniel J Walsh wrote:
> >
> >> I believe Fedora 17 has an add user to admin group checkbox when
> >> adding the initial user, not sure if it is checked on
how can it be that migration-kernel-threads have
107h when the uptime is around 4 days and the
machine is mostly not cpu-bound?
see screenshot
seems to affect only the 3.x kernels (Fedora 15 2.6.4x)
<>
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedorap
Am 02.03.2012 12:02, schrieb Marcela Mašláňová:
> Ok, so you'll automatically start non-responsive maintainer process,
> because maintainer didn't work on a one bug. But he might be working on
> different component for whole month. He might be working on a new
> upstream release and not paying at
On Fri, Mar 02, 2012 at 12:34:10 +,
"\"Jóhann B. Guðmundsson\"" wrote:
>
> One way to achieve that would be that one could do so by becoming
> proven packager through some kind of mentoring process ( which does
> not exist btw ) I would think.
I would think the implied process for someone
Am 02.03.2012 12:47, schrieb Marcela Mašláňová:
> Some developers prefer ignore it until they have time. Why should I
> write yes, yes, it's broken, I'll look at it next month. That's not
> helping anyway.
IT DOES HELP
it is a hughe difference for a bugreporter if he feels
a month ignored or be
Am 02.03.2012 13:00, schrieb Matthias Runge:
> On 02/03/12 12:52, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
>>
>> If a maintainer doesn't respond to a bug repord with the status
>> new in a week - give commit rights to the reporter in pkgdb
>> so he/she can fix it himself.
> I kind a' like this proposal. You'r
On 03/02/2012 04:27 PM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> On 03/02/2012 03:21 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
>> Process looks like this:
>>
>> * Guidelines updated
>> * Someone notices that the package does not follow the guidelines
>> (Note that
>>this step does not require that the Guidelines were
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 03/02/2012 10:38 AM, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-03-01 at 20:49 -0500, Daniel J Walsh wrote:
>> On 03/01/2012 05:43 PM, Adam Jackson wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2012-03-01 at 16:39 -0500, Daniel J Walsh wrote:
>>>
I believe Fedora 17 has an add
On Fri, Mar 02, 2012 at 10:20:10AM +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> I am a feature owner for a feature that involves components in the hundreds
> and is heavily depended on maintainers responsiveness.
>
> For me to start enacting the non responsive maintainers policy is a
> tremendous work
On 03/01/2012 12:48 PM, Thomas Woerner wrote:
> On 03/01/2012 04:52 PM, Paul Wouters wrote:
>> On Thu, 1 Mar 2012, Dan Williams wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 2012-02-29 at 17:20 +0100, Tore Anderson wrote:
* Jerry James
> Interesting. I'm seeing kind of the inverse problem:
> https://bugz
On Fri, Mar 02, 2012 at 13:55:11 +,
"\"Jóhann B. Guðmundsson\"" wrote:
> I'm not a packager already nor can I become one since I dont want to
> maintain a single package in the distribution since "it does not
> scratch my ich" but I would like to be able to fix things if I do
> come across t
- Original Message -
> From: "Reindl Harald"
> To: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
>
> Sent: Friday, March 2, 2012 2:09:00 PM
> Subject: Re: Automating the NonResponsiveMaintainers policy
>
>
>
> Am 02.03.2012 13:00, schrieb Matthias Runge:
> > On 02/03/12 12:52, Aleksan
Am 02.03.2012 16:47, schrieb Karel Zak:
> On Fri, Mar 02, 2012 at 10:20:10AM +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
>> I am a feature owner for a feature that involves components in the hundreds
>> and is heavily depended on maintainers responsiveness.
>>
>> For me to start enacting the non respons
On 03/02/2012 03:47 PM, Karel Zak wrote:
What's your project boy? .. create a huge collection of dirty words?;-)
Sorry not following where you are going with this?
IMHO it's bad idea.
Why do you think it's a bad idea automating a process that is now done
manually?
JBG
--
devel mailin
On Fri, Mar 02, 2012 at 01:09:00PM +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
> you are missing the differences between "ignored", "assigend" and "fixed"
> where did you see a line that a bug must be fixed in whatever time?
> you did not because it is not there
>
> the point is that if a reporter takes time to f
On 03/02/2012 03:45 PM, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
You are looking for re-review of packages mentioned many times before.
But we have problems to find reviewers for new one, so I don't believe
we would find enough people for this.
If it's an manual process sure I can understand why it's hard to r
Am 2. März 2012 16:56 schrieb Reindl Harald :
> what are all these maintainers doing?
>
> it takes exactly 5 minutes to write a systemd-unit for most
> services
Some packages need a bit more love, especially when the sysv init
scripts did more than just starting / stopping a service., e.g.
creatin
On Fri, Mar 02, 2012 at 04:13:44PM +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> Why do you think it's a bad idea automating a process that is now done
> manually?
because:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_nonresponsive_package_maintainers
* After 2 attempts of no contact, the reporter asks
On 03/02/2012 04:23 PM, Thomas Moschny wrote:
Am 2. März 2012 16:56 schrieb Reindl Harald:
what are all these maintainers doing?
it takes exactly 5 minutes to write a systemd-unit for most
services
Some packages need a bit more love, especially when the sysv init
scripts did more than just sta
Be careful what you wish for. btrfs is not a clear win on performance.
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=linux_33_btrfs&num=1
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On 03/02/2012 06:59 AM, Neal Becker wrote:
I believe Fedora 17 has an add user to admin group checkbox when
adding the initial user, not sure if it is checked on or off by default.
Actually, FC16 has this feature (and I use it). But this is sometimes even more
confusing. Does that dialog wan
- Original Message -
> From: "Reindl Harald"
> To: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
>
> Sent: Friday, March 2, 2012 5:56:10 PM
> Subject: Re: Automating the NonResponsiveMaintainers policy
>
>
> Am 02.03.2012 16:47, schrieb Karel Zak:
> > On Fri, Mar 02, 2012 at 10:20:10AM
On 03/02/2012 04:29 PM, Karel Zak wrote:
On Fri, Mar 02, 2012 at 04:13:44PM +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
Why do you think it's a bad idea automating a process that is now done
manually?
because:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_nonresponsive_package_maintainers
* After 2
On 03/02/2012 10:04 PM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
>
> Yes the automation would just automate these steps ending with posting
> the formal request to devel for fesco to pick up.
>
The best way to convince people is to actually just do it. Post a
script and show that it can be done.
Rahul
-
0001-init-txn-thread-private-data-for-all-database-modes.patch
Description: application/mbox
--
389-devel mailing list
389-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-devel
Hi,
2012/3/2 Neal Becker :
> Be careful what you wish for. btrfs is not a clear win on performance.
More frightening benchmarks are shown here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FegjLbCnoBw
This does not surprise me. Btrfs has more features than Ext4, so it
may be slower.
If anyone wants Btrfs as
On 03/02/2012 04:42 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> Yes the automation would just automate these steps ending with posting
> the formal request to devel for fesco to pick up.
>
The best way to convince people is to actually just do it. Post a
script and show that it can be done.
Do we have ac
On Fri, 2 Mar 2012 12:53:35 + (UTC)
Petr Pisar wrote:
> On 2012-03-01, Michal Schmidt wrote:
> > Dne 1.3.2012 17:52, Petr Pisar napsal(a):
> >> where to get public key for verifying RPM signatures.
> >
> > The keys are at: https://fedoraproject.org/keys
> >
> And F16 primary key (A82BA4B7) i
Am 02.03.2012 17:20, schrieb Karel Zak:
> On Fri, Mar 02, 2012 at 01:09:00PM +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
>> you are missing the differences between "ignored", "assigend" and "fixed"
>> where did you see a line that a bug must be fixed in whatever time?
>> you did not because it is not there
>>
>>
Am 02.03.2012 17:23, schrieb Thomas Moschny:
> Am 2. März 2012 16:56 schrieb Reindl Harald :
>> what are all these maintainers doing?
>>
>> it takes exactly 5 minutes to write a systemd-unit for most
>> services
>
> Some packages need a bit more love, especially when the sysv init
> scripts did
Am 02.03.2012 17:35, schrieb Aleksandar Kurtakov:
>> it takes exactly 5 minutes to write a systemd-unit for most
>> services like postfix/dbmail and nothing happens, even
>> not if the one you called "boy" submits patches, unit-files
>> and pinging maintainers since 3 releases with the result get
On 03/02/2012 10:15 PM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> On 03/02/2012 04:42 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>>> > Yes the automation would just automate these steps ending with
>>> posting
>>> > the formal request to devel for fesco to pick up.
>>> >
>> The best way to convince people is to actually
- Original Message -
> From: "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"
> To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Sent: Friday, March 2, 2012 6:45:24 PM
> Subject: Re: Automating the NonResponsiveMaintainers policy
>
> On 03/02/2012 04:42 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> >> > Yes the automation would just automat
1 - 100 of 166 matches
Mail list logo
