- "Kevin Fenzi" wrote:
>
> I'll repost what I posted to devel just a few ago.
> Sorry for any confusion. I didn't think it would be sending emails,
> and
> particularly with such a poor subject. ;(
>
> > Has it been disabled recently?
>
> Short answer: Yes. It has.
>
> Longer answer:
>
> If NetworkManager stops your network stops, period. Firefox, Evolution
> and Empathy for sure depend on it and eventually everything will. You
> can frob an undocumented option on Firefox's about:config screen but no
> known fix exists for the others.
>
> Solution: Troubleshoot your NetworkMa
On Thu, 2010-09-02 at 14:17 +0200, Dennis J. wrote:
> What I would like to see is a distinction between regressions and other
> bugs. There are a least two reasons why this might be worthwhile:
>
> 1. Regressions break functionality that has been known to work previously
> and the users already
On Thu, 2010-09-02 at 08:50 +0300, cornel panceac wrote:
> something strange happens on one of my test pcs running f14 (updated).
> firefox always starts in offline mode. i uncheck work offline and
> eevrythings fine until i close and start again firefox, when it's in
> offline mode again. what cou
CORRECTION Friday, 2010-09-03
> When: Friday, 2010-09-02 @ 16:00 UTC (12 PM EST)
> Where: #fedora-bugzappers on irc.freenode.net
>
> Here are the current bugs listed as blocking the Beta release. We'll be
> discussing all of these to determine if they meet the criteria, should
> stay on the list,
When: Friday, 2010-09-02 @ 16:00 UTC (12 PM EST)
Where: #fedora-bugzappers on irc.freenode.net
Here are the current bugs listed as blocking the Beta release. We'll be
discussing all of these to determine if they meet the criteria, should
stay on the list, and are getting the attention they nee
On Thu, 2 Sep 2010 19:06:14 + (UTC)
Andre Robatino wrote:
> Not that it matters now, but it probably would have been better to
> allow just one vote apiece, not an arbitrary number. Having said
> that, using CC or comments is probably a better way since it happens
> automatically. CC might be
The following builds have been pushed to Fedora 12 updates-testing
CVector-1.0.3-1.5Aug09.fc12
NetworkManager-0.8.1-6.git20100831.fc12
R-qtl-1.18.7-1.fc12
bdii-5.1.8-1.fc12
cherokee-1.0.8-2.fc12
cntlm-0.35.1-4.fc12
cryptopp-5.6.1-1.fc12
eclipse-3.5.1-23.fc12
flu
The following builds have been pushed to Fedora 13 updates-testing
CVector-1.0.3-1.5Aug09.fc13
NetworkManager-0.8.1-6.git20100831.fc13
PackageKit-0.6.6-2.fc13
R-qtl-1.18.7-1.fc13
bdii-5.1.8-1.fc13
cherokee-1.0.8-2.fc13
cntlm-0.35.1-4.fc13
cryptopp-5.6.1-1.fc13
f
On Thu, Sep 02, 2010 at 23:42:04 +0530,
Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
>
> Ok, but what good is a build if it has not been pushed out through
> bodhi? Couldn't we have another option, like successful builds being
> auto-pushed or something? I know that auto-pushing is probably not a
> very good idea
On Thu, 2010-09-02 at 12:09 -0700, Scott Doty wrote:
> Anyway, I could say more -- but I've probably already shown how bananas
> my ideas can be.
It's not bananas, it's just a lot of work that no-one's done yet - well,
actually, it's implemented quite well in Launchpad, but most things
don't use
#104: F14 systemd Test Day
---+
Reporter: adamwill | Owner: adamwill
Type: defect| Status: assigned
Priority: major | Milestone: Fedora 14
Component: Test Day | Version:
On 09/02/2010 11:16 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
>
> There's no guarantee the bug will get closed even if the problem is
> fixed, unless someone else has the same hardware as you and is testing.
> A fix may come down from upstream without being recognized specifically
> as a fix for this particular
Kevin Fenzi scrye.com> writes:
> > Has it been disabled recently?
>
> Short answer: Yes. It has.
>
> Longer answer:
>
> FESCo looked at trying to use voting data to give us an idea on 'hot'
> bugs that we might be able to send more resources to fix. Sadly, voting
> isn't at all good for th
On Thu, 2010-09-02 at 14:56 -0400, Jan Wildeboer wrote:
> IMHO it is an unfortunate decision. But I understand the reasoning.
>
> Take a look at how google handles this for android.
>
> Very simple solution which would adapt to our bugzilla like this:
>
> - once you are logged in to Bugzilla, yo
IMHO it is an unfortunate decision. But I understand the reasoning.
Take a look at how google handles this for android.
Very simple solution which would adapt to our bugzilla like this:
- once you are logged in to Bugzilla, you can "star" a bug.
- you can star/unstar at any time
- so you have as
On Thu, 2010-09-02 at 17:09 +1000, Rodd Clarkson wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 4:34 PM, Matthias Runge
> wrote:
>
>
>
> Although I think, this is the wrong way, putting
> exclude=kernel-*
> in your /etc/yum.conf will exclude the kernel fro
On Thu, 2010-09-02 at 16:24 +1000, Rodd Clarkson wrote:
> Ah, and here I guess lies the problem. The email from the fedora
> engineers (some weeks ago) quite clearly stated not to give this
> kernel karma points so that it didn't get pushed until they were sure
> it wouldn't cause issues, so I ha
On Thu, Sep 02, 2010 at 10:52:48AM -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 02, 2010 at 19:17:13 +0530,
> Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
> >
> > I had just started working on this, but I noticed that in some cases
> > the builds were not pushed as updates. Should these be closed as
> > CURRENTREL
On Thu, Sep 02, 2010 at 19:17:13 +0530,
Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
>
> I had just started working on this, but I noticed that in some cases
> the builds were not pushed as updates. Should these be closed as
> CURRENTRELEASE?
When I was getting more time to work on this I was doing things both w
# yum install firefox
Loaded plugins: fastestmirror, langpacks, presto
Adding en_US to language list
Determining fastest mirrors
rawhide/metalink
| 13 kB 00:00
* rawhide: hpc.arc.georgetown.edu
http://hpc.arc.georgetown.edu/mirror/fedora/development/rawhide/
On Thu, 2 Sep 2010 08:16:00 -0400
Scott Robbins wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 02, 2010 at 09:29:40AM +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"
> wrote:
> > Never seen any option for voting on bugs in bugzilla and
> > seriously doubt the use of it's existence because maintainers would
> > ignore that just as well a
Compose started at Thu Sep 2 13:15:31 UTC 2010
Broken deps for x86_64
--
PragmARC-20060427-6.fc13.i686 requires libgnarl-4.4.so
PragmARC-20060427-6.fc13.i686 requires libgnat-4.4.so
PragmARC-20060427-6.fc13.x86_64 req
On Thu, Sep 02, 2010 at 08:29:48AM -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 02, 2010 at 10:04:50 +0300,
> Alexander Kurtakov wrote:
> > Hi testers,
> > This is stronly a developer request.
> > I'm watching the FTBFS list in bugzilla because I'm trying to fix base java
> > FTBFS using my prov
On Thu, Sep 02, 2010 at 10:04:50 +0300,
Alexander Kurtakov wrote:
> Hi testers,
> This is stronly a developer request.
> I'm watching the FTBFS list in bugzilla because I'm trying to fix base java
> FTBFS using my provenpackager status. But the list currently is more than 200
> bugs which make
On 09/02/2010 02:39 PM, drago01 wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 2:27 PM, cornel panceac wrote:
>>
>>
>> 2010/9/2 drago01
>>>
>>> On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 2:17 PM, Dennis J. wrote:
>>>
2. Regressions can be easier to fix because you have a "known to work"
case
you can use as a compari
2010/9/2 drago01
> On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 2:27 PM, cornel panceac wrote:
> >>
> > that's one of the many reasons testers' work should not just be
> discarded.
>
> Where did I say that?
>
> > they have a lot of hardware and a lot of time the developers can not
> > possibly have. also they are mor
On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 2:27 PM, cornel panceac wrote:
>
>
> 2010/9/2 drago01
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 2:17 PM, Dennis J. wrote:
>>
>> > 2. Regressions can be easier to fix because you have a "known to work"
>> > case
>> > you can use as a comparison. If bugs could be flagged as regression th
2010/9/2 drago01
> On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 2:17 PM, Dennis J. wrote:
>
> > 2. Regressions can be easier to fix because you have a "known to work"
> case
> > you can use as a comparison. If bugs could be flagged as regression then
> > developers you potentially look at these first right after the
On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 2:17 PM, Dennis J. wrote:
> 2. Regressions can be easier to fix because you have a "known to work" case
> you can use as a comparison. If bugs could be flagged as regression then
> developers you potentially look at these first right after the regressions
> occurred and pro
On 09/02/2010 12:35 PM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> To actually see the extent and identifying problem(s) and regressions (
> you could notice reporting trends with components ) and deal with it
> accordingly we need to gather and make public bugzilla stats for
> components.
>
> Making those s
On Thu, Sep 02, 2010 at 09:29:40AM +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> Never seen any option for voting on bugs in bugzilla and seriously
> doubt the use of it's existence because maintainers would ignore that
> just as well as if you start messing around with the priority levels and
> sev
Compose started at Thu Sep 2 08:15:32 UTC 2010
Broken deps for x86_64
--
PragmARC-20060427-6.fc13.i686 requires libgnarl-4.4.so
PragmARC-20060427-6.fc13.i686 requires libgnat-4.4.so
PragmARC-20060427-6.fc13.x86_64 req
On Thu, Sep 02, 2010 at 04:24:37PM +1000, Rodd Clarkson wrote:
> I'm really not happy with this entire process. I've also received an email
> saying that my 99 votes have been removed because someone at fedora decided
> to change the rules regarding my bug and voting and that my votes don't
> coun
On 09/02/2010 09:56 AM, Dennis J. wrote:
> I think the question is how regressions are prioritized. For me the issue
> is that my Radeon card has been working perfectly on F11 but had a major
> performance regression with F12 that makes the system too slow for regular
> use. I filed a bug with lo
On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 8:29 AM, Rodd Clarkson wrote:
>
>> Anyhow, what a waste of time all around. I spend a couple of painful
>> hours booting and rebooting my system to try and isolate this bug and the
>> developers couldn't take two minutes to mention that they needed to post the
>> kernel and
2010/9/2 Dennis J.
> On 09/02/2010 04:18 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Thu, 2010-09-02 at 12:12 +1000, Rodd Clarkson wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> It is however, perfectly reasonable to expect that having tried a
> >> kernel at the request of a fedora developer on fedora-test-list and
> >> then having
On 09/02/2010 09:43 AM, Frank Murphy wrote:
> I got one two, a 1 vote removed.
> I only ever passed comments on bohdi?
Are we talking about of voting in bugzilla or in bodhi ( or some other
place ).
I've never used nor ever seen any kind of option to vote in bugzilla so
I'm a bit curious whe
On 09/02/2010 04:18 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-09-02 at 12:12 +1000, Rodd Clarkson wrote:
>
>>
>> It is however, perfectly reasonable to expect that having tried a
>> kernel at the request of a fedora developer on fedora-test-list and
>> then having filed a bug against said kernel re
On 02/09/10 10:29, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> But I'm not surprised that your privileges got revoked on this voting
> system if you went trigger happy on the voting and thus abused it's
> existence and it's purpose one can even go so far and say you managed to
> voted your self out of it :)
Never seen any option for voting on bugs in bugzilla and seriously
doubt the use of it's existence because maintainers would ignore that
just as well as if you start messing around with the priority levels and
severity levels. ( The priority levels are for them to set and use only ).
But I'm
Bugzilla has disabled voting, or what is it? Anyone knows?
I no longer see any option to vote for a bug.
- Forwarded Message -
From: bugzi...@redhat.com
To: kpa...@redhat.com
Sent: Thursday, September 2, 2010 5:29:30 AM GMT +01:00 Amsterdam / Berlin /
Bern / Rome / Stockholm / Vienna
Sub
Rodd Clarkson clarkson.id.au> writes:
> Ah, and here I guess lies the problem. The email from the fedora engineers
(some weeks ago) quite clearly
> stated not to give this kernel karma points so that it didn't get pushed until
they were sure it wouldn't cause > issues, so I haven't been giving i
On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 4:34 PM, Matthias Runge wrote:
>
> Although I think, this is the wrong way, putting
> exclude=kernel-*
> in your /etc/yum.conf will exclude the kernel from updating.
>
Thanks Matthias,
I don't like excluding kernels either, but I don't need to be adding
--exclude=kernel\*
Hi testers,
This is stronly a developer request.
I'm watching the FTBFS list in bugzilla because I'm trying to fix base java
FTBFS using my provenpackager status. But the list currently is more than 200
bugs which makes it a bit hard to follow. And there are a number of bugs that
have been fixed
45 matches
Mail list logo
