Re: Revamping the non responsive maintainer process

Dne 6.11.2012 16:04, Ralf Corsepius napsal(a): On 11/06/2012 02:24 PM, Vít Ondruch wrote: Dne 6.11.2012 14:17, Aleksandar Kurtakov napsal(a): - Original Message - From: "Vít Ondruch" To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Sent: Tuesday, November 6, 2012 2:56:18 PM Subject: Re: Revamping th

Re: Revamping the non responsive maintainer process

Dne 6.11.2012 16:40, Marcela Mašláňová napsal(a): On 11/06/2012 04:32 PM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: On 11/06/2012 01:07 PM, Marcela Mašláňová wrote: Oh no, you are top posting again ;-) Could you create fesco ticket for this package? I proposed usage of the script in Johann's ticket https

Re: Revamping the non responsive maintainer process

On Wed, 2012-11-07 at 09:49 +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote: > > You are still maintainer, you are still owner and you are notified by > email about every change in your package, so you'll be able to catch > such activity pretty soon and act accordingly. To be the devil's advocate, you do get the emai

Re: Rawhide

Dne 7.11.2012 08:08, Dan Horák napsal(a): Jesse Keating píše v Út 06. 11. 2012 v 10:48 -0800: On 11/06/2012 03:35 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote: And rel-engs actively prohibits staging as much as they can [1], where it should be encouraged IMO. Vit [1] https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/4580

Re: Revamping the non responsive maintainer process

Dne 7.11.2012 09:52, Vít Ondruch napsal(a): Dne 6.11.2012 16:40, Marcela Mašláňová napsal(a): On 11/06/2012 04:32 PM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: On 11/06/2012 01:07 PM, Marcela Mašláňová wrote: Oh no, you are top posting again ;-) Could you create fesco ticket for this package? I proposed

Re: Revamping the non responsive maintainer process

Dne 7.11.2012 10:00, Pierre-Yves Chibon napsal(a): On Wed, 2012-11-07 at 09:49 +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote: You are still maintainer, you are still owner and you are notified by email about every change in your package, so you'll be able to catch such activity pretty soon and act accordingly. To b

Re: Revamping the non responsive maintainer process

On 11/07/2012 09:49 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote: Dne 6.11.2012 16:04, Ralf Corsepius napsal(a): On 11/06/2012 02:24 PM, Vít Ondruch wrote: Dne 6.11.2012 14:17, Aleksandar Kurtakov napsal(a): - Original Message - From: "Vít Ondruch" To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Sent: Tuesday, November

Re: Revamping the non responsive maintainer process

On Wed, 2012-11-07 at 10:12 +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote: > Dne 7.11.2012 10:00, Pierre-Yves Chibon napsal(a): > > On Wed, 2012-11-07 at 09:49 +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote: > >> You are still maintainer, you are still owner and you are notified by > >> email about every change in your package, so you'll be

Re: Revamping the non responsive maintainer process

Dne 7.11.2012 10:21, Ralf Corsepius napsal(a): On 11/07/2012 09:49 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote: Dne 6.11.2012 16:04, Ralf Corsepius napsal(a): On 11/06/2012 02:24 PM, Vít Ondruch wrote: Dne 6.11.2012 14:17, Aleksandar Kurtakov napsal(a): - Original Message - From: "Vít Ondruch" To: devel@

[Test-Announce] 2012-11-07 @ 17:00 UTC - F18 Beta Blocker Bug Review #7

# F18 Beta Blocker Review meeting #7 # Date: 2012-11-07 # Time: 17:00 UTC # Location: #fedora-qa on irc.freenode.net Note: The UTC time was changed. If your country switched from summer time to winter time the last weekend, your local time of the meeting should stay the same. Keeping with what

F-18 Branched report: 20121107 changes

Compose started at Wed Nov 7 09:15:33 UTC 2012 Broken deps for x86_64 -- [dhcp-forwarder] dhcp-forwarder-upstart-0.10-1801.fc18.noarch requires /sbin/initctl [dnf] dnf-0.2.14-2.git4831982.fc18.noarch requires python-hawkey >=

Unblocking packages: new review needed?

I have requested Release Engineering to unblock some packages, which previously had been blocked on some branches: https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/5387 I have been told that those packages must be reviewed again in order to be unblocked. I'm not 100% sure of what to do. Do I have to open a

Self-introduction

Greetings! I'd like to introduce myself to the group before I get to work packaging the Release Notes. I've been a contributor to the Documentation Group for several years, including serving as the team lead for Fedora 17 and 18. Eventually, there are a few other packages I'd like to maintain, bu

Re: Unblocking packages: new review needed?

Sound very strange, it is not some kind orphan package, there have been out of Fedora and has to re-enter. It it an active maintained package in F17, there just have not worked with latest version for gnome-shell, because they change the way themes works in every release. It a waste of reviewers ti

Anything changed on rawhide builders recently? Can't build ladvd

Hi, Today I tried to build ladvd 1.0.4 package for rawhide, but it failed with some strange message http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=4662562&name=build.log&offset=-4000 , which is pasted below. So I rolled back to 1.0.2 and it failed to build, too. It was building fine previo

Re: Unblocking packages: new review needed?

On 2012-11-07 15:47, tim.laurid...@gmail.com wrote: Sound very strange, it is not some kind orphan package, there have been out of Fedora and has to re-enter. It it an active maintained package in F17, there just have not worked with latest version for gnome-shell, because they change the way t

Re: Revamping the non responsive maintainer process

Vít Ondruch wrote: > Come on, there are the same alarmist who think that Wikipedia will be > hijacked and destroyed but have it happened any time? Edit wars often break out on Wikipedia. That's not something I would like to see in Fedora. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lamest_edit_wars A

Re: New release cycle proposal (was Rolling release model philosophy (was ...))

Am 06.11.2012 19:48, schrieb Peter Lemenkov: > Hello All. > > 2012/11/6 Matthieu Gautier : >> For example, if we start from Fedora20 at beginning of 2014: >> - Fedora20(jan 2014) is a stable release. (Fedora18 eol, actual way of >> doing) >> - Fedora21Preview(jul 2014) is an "unstable" release.

Re: Anything changed on rawhide builders recently? Can't build ladvd

On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 10:05 AM, Tomasz Torcz wrote: > Hi, > > Today I tried to build ladvd 1.0.4 package for rawhide, but it failed with > some strange message > http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=4662562&name=build.log&offset=-4000 > , > which is pasted below. So I rolled bac

Re: Unblocking packages: new review needed?

On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 10:07 AM, Alec Leamas wrote: > No top-posting in fedora-devel :) > > Sorry :) > Besides that, I can just agree with Tim. The oldest package was reviewed > less than a year ago, the two others last summer. Requiring a new review > is, well, somewhat formal. > > That said,

Re: Rawhide

On 11/07/2012 01:02 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote: Dne 7.11.2012 08:08, Dan Horák napsal(a): Jesse Keating píše v Út 06. 11. 2012 v 10:48 -0800: On 11/06/2012 03:35 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote: And rel-engs actively prohibits staging as much as they can [1], where it should be encouraged IMO. Vit [1] ht

Re: Unblocking packages: new review needed?

On 2012-11-07 16:53, tim.laurid...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 10:07 AM, Alec Leamas > wrote: No top-posting in fedora-devel :) Sorry :) Besides that, I can just agree with Tim. The oldest package was reviewed less than a year ago, the

Re: Unblocking packages: new review needed?

On Wed, 07 Nov 2012 16:59:19 +0100 Alec Leamas wrote: > It might be that you are right, dunno, this is just so weird. My > point is just that three simple reviews might be less work than to > discuss this until there is a Proper Solution. The guideline is: If the package is "Retired" in pkgdb,

Re: Unblocking packages: new review needed?

On Wed, 2012-11-07 at 16:59 +0100, Alec Leamas wrote: > On 2012-11-07 16:53, tim.laurid...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 10:07 AM, Alec Leamas > > > Besides that, I can just agree with Tim. The oldest package > > was reviewed less than a year ago, the two others la

Schedule for Wednesday's FESCo Meeting (2012-11-07)

Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FESCo meeting Wednesday at 18:00UTC (1:00pm EST) in #fedora-meeting on irc.freenode.net. Links to all tickets below can be found at: https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/report/9 = Followups = #topic #960 F18 schedule + the holidays .fesc

Re: Anything changed on rawhide builders recently? Can't build ladvd

Tomasz Torcz wrote: > In file included from cli.c:20:0: > common.h:152:8: error: redefinition of 'struct sysinfo' > In file included from /usr/include/linux/kernel.h:4:0, > from /usr/include/linux/sysctl.h:25, > from /usr/include/sys/sysctl.h:43, >

Re: Anything changed on rawhide builders recently? Can't build ladvd

David Howells wrote: > A better way to do this might be to make the header installation discard the > "_UAPI" prefix that got added. As the attached patch. David --- commit 75a88e14a97d239a47cbd0fc55fc23416007d733 Author: David Howells Date: Wed Nov 7 17:14:14 2012 + UAPI: Strip the

Re: Rawhide

Sandro Mani (manisan...@gmail.com) said: > >- It's been suggested before, but could we practically keep N and N-1 > > packages in rawhide repos? Then 'yum downgrade' becomes much more > > handy. Repodata size and mirror size might shoot that down though. The compose process currently can pull

Fedora ARM weekly status meeting 2012-11-07

Good day all, This weeks Fedora ARM status meeting will take place today (Wednesday Nov 7th) in #fedora-meeting-1 on Freenode. Times in various time zones (please let us know if these do not work): PDT: 1pm MDT: 2pm CDT: 3pm EDT: 4pm UTC: 8pm BST: 9pm CST: 10pm Current items on the agenda: 1)

Re: Fedora ARM weekly status meeting 2012-11-07

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 11/07/2012 01:51 PM, Paul Whalen wrote: > Good day all, > > This weeks Fedora ARM status meeting will take place today (Wednesday Nov > 7th) in #fedora-meeting-1 on Freenode. Times in various time zones (please > let us know if these do not work):

[Test-Announce] Fedora 18 Beta to slip by two weeks, Beta release date is now Nov 27

Today at FESCo meeting [1] it was decided to slip Fedora 18 Beta release by *two* weeks to give the Installer team, the new upgrade tool and Secure Boot time to finish and polish these features to meet our release quality standards. As a result, Fedora 18 Beta will be pushed out by two weeks, the

Fedora ARM weekly status meeting minutes 2012-11-07

Good day all, Thanks to those who were able to join us for the weekly status meeting today. For those that were unable, the minutes are posted below: Minutes: http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2012-11-07/fedora-meeting-1.2012-11-07-21.00.html Minutes (text): http://meetbot.fedo

Review swaps for Audio spin

Hi all I have a number of outstanding reviews that we are hoping to inlcude on the audio spin media. All are fairly trivial so shouldn't take too much time. giada - an audio looper for jack https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=866156 python-mididings - a MIDI router and processor in

Re: Rawhide

"Nicolas Mailhot" a écrit: > Le Lun 5 novembre 2012 10:45, Dodji Seketeli a écrit : > >> Just having a dedicated Rawhide Swat Team of die hard volunteers who >> could spot issues early, file more bugs, gently push for fixes in >> Rawhide and last but not least build a kind of "esprit de corps" am

Re: Rawhide

Kevin Fenzi a écrit: > On Mon, 05 Nov 2012 10:45:00 +0100 > Dodji Seketeli wrote: > > ...snip... > >> Could we have a rawhide-list for this? I know fighting proliferation >> of mailing list is a good thing, but practically speaking, being able >> to quickly scan a mailing list before doing a yu

Re: small tip regarding git branch bash prompt in F18/Rawhide

On Wed, 2012-08-22 at 16:12 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > Hey folks - just in case you haven't all figured this out yet, if > you're using the neat little trick of putting a few lines in your > ~/.bashrc so that when you're in a directory containing a git repo, the > prompt will display what b

headsup: ghc-7.4.2 and haskell-platform-2012.4 coming soon to rawhide

Hi, The Haskell SIG will soon be updating ghc to 7.4.2 and the just released haskell-platform-2012.4.0.0. At the same time there will be a big bunch of pending version updates for various Haskell packages. As usual this will require rebuilding all the packages. Apart from bugfixes, a nice featu

Re: Fedora 18 Beta to slip by two weeks, Beta release date is now Nov 27

Jaroslav Reznik redhat.com> writes: > Final Change deadline is rescheduled to Dec 18 with final > Fedora 18 release on 2013 Jan 08 [2]. I know everyone is going to hate me for saying this, but wouldn't it make sense to just forget about F-18 and go for F-19 instead? After all, F-19 feature submi

Re: Fedora 18 Beta to slip by two weeks, Beta release date is now Nov 27

Oh my goodness. This is the highest amount of slippage I've seen in quite some time. What is wrong with Fedora? The slippage is getting worse each and every single release. I love Fedora and all, but this is absolutely ridiculous... On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 7:52 PM, Bojan Smojver wrote: > Jarosla

Re: Fedora 18 Beta to slip by two weeks, Beta release date is now Nov 27

I dont think anything is "wrong" with Fedora, but I do think we need to have reasonable expectations for systems that are put together with lots of moving parts. Delays are not rediculous, they are just the nature of complex systems. Nobody is forcing anyone to hurt furry animals while the rele

Re: Fedora 18 Beta to slip by two weeks, Beta release date is now Nov 27

On Wed, 2012-11-07 at 21:07 -0600, Conan Kudo (ニール・ゴンパ) wrote: > Oh my goodness. This is the highest amount of slippage I've seen in > quite some time. What is wrong with Fedora? The new anaconda UI and related features are more or less entirely the cause of the slip. Secure boot support is also

Attention, dependency fighters

In case anyone noticed minimal install got rather bigger between Alpha and Beta - I did too. And I finally got around to figuring out why and filing a bug: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=874378 long story short, it's firewalld. Its deps are pretty heavy for something that's supposed

Re: Attention, dependency fighters

On Wed, Nov 07, 2012 at 07:56:30PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > long story short, it's firewalld. Its deps are pretty heavy for > something that's supposed to be in minimal. I'm sure twoerner would > welcome help in pruning the deps if it's possible. it should at least be > possible for it not t

Re: "network" service fails to set wireless parameters.

On Tue, 2012-11-06 at 23:16 +0100, Björn Persson wrote: > Dan Williams wrote: > > On Tue, 2012-11-06 at 21:47 +0100, Björn Persson wrote: > > > I have a Wifi card that is supposed to be managed by the "network" > > > service. The interface's IP addresses, prefixes, routes and all that > > > get ass

Re: Fedora 18 Beta to slip by two weeks, Beta release date is now Nov 27

On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 5:55 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: > > On Wed, 2012-11-07 at 21:07 -0600, Conan Kudo (ニール・ゴンパ) wrote: > > Oh my goodness. This is the highest amount of slippage I've seen in > > quite some time. What is wrong with Fedora? > > The new anaconda UI and related features are more or

Re: Fedora 18 Beta to slip by two weeks, Beta release date is now Nov 27

Conan Kudo (ニール・ゴンパ) wrote: > Oh my goodness. This is the highest amount of slippage I've seen in quite > some time. What is wrong with Fedora? The slippage is getting worse each > and every single release. I love Fedora and all, but this is absolutely > ridiculous... One factor is that QA has bec

Re: Fedora 18 Beta to slip by two weeks, Beta release date is now Nov 27

Adam Williamson wrote: > The new anaconda UI and related features are more or less entirely the > cause of the slip. This shows that those changes should not have been done, or at least not in this way. > Secure boot support is also not done yet (waiting on the signature for > shim to get sorted

Re: Review Swap: ownCloud Server

Kevin Fenzi wrote: > Note that there is negative time to achieve this f18 feature, that has > moved to target f19. ;) IMHO, given how this is a new package which isn't going to break anything else, this is a perfect candidate for a late feature exception. Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing

Re: Review Swap: ownCloud Server

On Thu, Nov 08, 2012 at 06:50:02AM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: > > Note that there is negative time to achieve this f18 feature, that has > > moved to target f19. ;) > IMHO, given how this is a new package which isn't going to break anything > else, this is a perfect candidate for a late feature ex

Re: Fedora 18 Beta to slip by two weeks, Beta release date is now Nov 27

On Thu, Nov 08, 2012 at 06:31:20AM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Adam Williamson wrote: > > The new anaconda UI and related features are more or less entirely the > > cause of the slip. > > This shows that those changes should not have been done, or at least not in > this way. It turns out that s

Re: Fedora 18 Beta to slip by two weeks, Beta release date is now Nov 27

I've now done half a dozen F18 multi-boot installs and I must say it's a miracle I haven't over-written something I wanted to keep. The thing that would make it usable for me would be very simple - just put the partition names on the labeling so I know what's going to end up where! The rest of the

Re: Fedora 18 Beta to slip by two weeks, Beta release date is now Nov 27

On Thu, 2012-11-08 at 07:04 +0200, Gilboa Davara wrote: > On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 5:55 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: > > > > On Wed, 2012-11-07 at 21:07 -0600, Conan Kudo (ニール・ゴンパ) wrote: > > > Oh my goodness. This is the highest amount of slippage I've seen in > > > quite some time. What is wrong wit

Re: Fedora 18 Beta to slip by two weeks, Beta release date is now Nov 27

On Thu, 2012-11-08 at 06:31 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Adam Williamson wrote: > > The new anaconda UI and related features are more or less entirely the > > cause of the slip. > > This shows that those changes should not have been done, or at least not in > this way. I think it's widely agreed

Re: Fedora 18 Beta to slip by two weeks, Beta release date is now Nov 27

On 8 Nov 2012 07:30, "Kevin Kofler" wrote: > > Conan Kudo (ニール・ゴンパ) wrote: > > Oh my goodness. This is the highest amount of slippage I've seen in quite > > some time. What is wrong with Fedora? The slippage is getting worse each > > and every single release. I love Fedora and all, but this is abs

Re: Fedora 18 Beta to slip by two weeks, Beta release date is now Nov 27

On 8 Nov 2012 07:35, "Kevin Kofler" wrote: > > Adam Williamson wrote: > > The new anaconda UI and related features are more or less entirely the > > cause of the slip. > > This shows that those changes should not have been done, or at least not in > this way. Hindsight is a fabulous thing, I susp