On Fri, May 03, 2013 at 11:11:56PM -0400, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 05/03/2013 10:59 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >Many UI decisions are unprecedented. That doesn't justify
> >reopening bugs that the maintainer has closed. If you want to have
> >a discussion about whether or not this is a reasonab
On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 8:51 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Fri, May 03, 2013 at 11:11:56PM -0400, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>> On 05/03/2013 10:59 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> >Many UI decisions are unprecedented. That doesn't justify
>> >reopening bugs that the maintainer has closed. If you want to
On 05/03/2013 11:51 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
And if the maintainers feel more than justified in closing it again?
Hopefully, they will reconsider their decision before doing that. You
seem to be claiming that once the maintainer has a bug report as a
deliberate UI change, it should never be r
On Fri, May 03, 2013 at 08:52:25PM -0700, Dan Mashal wrote:
> On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 8:51 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > And if the maintainers feel more than justified in closing it again?
> > Bugzilla isn't a discussion forum. If disagree with a deliberate policy
> > decision, discuss it on an a
On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 8:58 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Fri, May 03, 2013 at 08:52:25PM -0700, Dan Mashal wrote:
>> On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 8:51 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> > And if the maintainers feel more than justified in closing it again?
>> > Bugzilla isn't a discussion forum. If disag
On Fri, May 03, 2013 at 11:55:24PM -0400, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 05/03/2013 11:51 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >And if the maintainers feel more than justified in closing it again?
> Hopefully, they will reconsider their decision before doing that.
> You seem to be claiming that once the mainta
On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 9:01 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Fri, May 03, 2013 at 11:55:24PM -0400, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>> On 05/03/2013 11:51 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> >And if the maintainers feel more than justified in closing it again?
>> Hopefully, they will reconsider their decision befo
On Fri, May 03, 2013 at 08:59:11PM -0700, Dan Mashal wrote:
> On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 8:58 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > No, this isn't the most appropriate mailing list for the discussion
> > anaconda-devel-list is a better choice if you want to interact with the
> > people who actually work on
On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 9:03 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Seriously. Learn to trim or I'm never reading email from you again.
Is this better? Quite frankly I could care less whether you read my
email or not.
Dan
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/
Hi
On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 12:01 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>
> I'm saying that if a bug report has been closed due to the change being
> a deliberate design decision, reopening the bug isn't going to change
> the fact that it was a deliberate design decision.
>
I understand your perspective ju
On Saturday, May 04, 2013 11:28 AM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Fri, May 03, 2013 at 23:26:51 -0400,
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 05/03/2013 11:22 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
It's not like the people entering the password don't know it is visible.
On the contrary, it is entirely unexpected that
On 2013-05-04 04:58 (GMT+0100) Matthew Garrett composed:
this isn't the most appropriate mailing list for the discussion -
anaconda-devel-list is a better choice if you want to interact with the
people who actually work on that code.
I strongly disagree. The policy implication of this violatio
NOTE: All DVD and Live images except KDE Live and SoaS Live are still
oversize (as they have been since 19 Alpha TC3).
As per the Fedora 19 schedule [1], Fedora 19 Beta Test Compose 3 (TC3)
is now available for testing. Content information, including changes,
can be found at https://fedorahosted.o
On 5/3/13 10:58 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Fri, May 03, 2013 at 08:52:25PM -0700, Dan Mashal wrote:
>> On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 8:51 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>>> And if the maintainers feel more than justified in closing it again?
>>> Bugzilla isn't a discussion forum. If disagree with a deli
On Fri, May 03, 2013 at 11:24:01PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> On 5/3/13 10:58 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > No, this isn't the most appropriate mailing list for the discussion -
> > anaconda-devel-list is a better choice if you want to interact with the
> > people who actually work on that cod
On 05/04/2013 12:24 AM, Eric Sandeen wrote:
On the other hand, if it's the right thing to do, then it needs to be
done for GUI password change dialogs and the passwd command should be
updated as well, for consistency, no?
On a related note, Anaconda, GNOME, KDE etc seems to be relying on
dif
On Sat, May 04, 2013 at 12:11:21AM -0400, Felix Miata wrote:
> On 2013-05-04 04:58 (GMT+0100) Matthew Garrett composed:
>
> >this isn't the most appropriate mailing list for the discussion -
> >anaconda-devel-list is a better choice if you want to interact with the
> >people who actually work on t
On Sat, May 04, 2013 at 12:07:30AM -0400, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 12:01 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > I'm saying that if a bug report has been closed due to the change being
> > a deliberate design decision, reopening the bug isn't going to change
> > the fact that it was a
On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 9:32 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> If you want to change a decision, it helps if you're discussing it in a
> forum that's read by the people who made that decision.
Anaconda developers don't read the developer list? That's terrible!
On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 9:35 PM, Matthew
Hi
On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 12:35 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>
>
> Bugzilla's a dreadful place to have discussions. The lack of threading
> means unpopular decisions tend to just result in large numbers of
> contentless comments which make meaningful discussion impossible - it's
> a nightmare to f
On Sat, 4 May 2013 05:32:18 +0100
Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > I strongly disagree. The policy implication of this violation of
> > tradition and expectation goes beyond Anaconda.
>
> If you want to change a decision, it helps if you're discussing it in a
> forum that's read by the people who mad
On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 9:40 PM, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:
> I didn't notice this the last time I did an install. But yes, it's a
> *problem* if it does that. I'll upvote or whatever if someone re-opens; I
> do so many installs in coffee shops that I would flat out not use a distro
> that did t
On 5/3/13 11:30 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Fri, May 03, 2013 at 11:24:01PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>> On 5/3/13 10:58 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>>> No, this isn't the most appropriate mailing list for the discussion -
>>> anaconda-devel-list is a better choice if you want to interact with
On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 9:53 PM, Pete Zaitcev wrote:
> This is a perfectly appropriate forum where their authority for
> making this decision is to be discussed before it's revoked if
> necessary.
Hi Pete. Thanks for your very helpful reply. You mentioned something
VERY important, so now I have a
On 05/03/2013 03:08 PM, Reartes Guillermo wrote:
I think that the previous behaviour was better. (covering the password
with bullets).
At least the phones only show one character at a time, not the whole
password.
GTK shows everything or nothing with visibility being a boolean setting.
GTK
Once upon a time, Bruno Wolff III said:
> It's not like the people entering the password don't know it is visible.
Actually, yes it is. The vast majority of other software that accepts
passwords for any reason hides the passwords as they are typed, so the
general expectation is that passwords a
On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 10:45 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Bruno Wolff III said:
>> It's not like the people entering the password don't know it is visible.
>
> Actually, yes it is. The vast majority of other software that accepts
> passwords for any reason hides the passwords as th
Once upon a time, Mike Pinkerton said:
> On 3 May 2013, at 15:07, Chris Adams wrote:
> >Once upon a time, Mike Pinkerton said:
> >>Does anaconda check package signatures for the netinstall?
> >
> >I believe so. Checksums are definately checked (RPM won't install a
> >corrupt package).
>
> Are y
101 - 128 of 128 matches
Mail list logo
