On Thu, 2012-06-28 at 23:13 +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> On 06/28/2012 09:22 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > That's not really true. We don't maintain the updates policy, FESCo
> > does.
>
> Yes that's what I'm saying as in why is Fesco maintaining the update
> policy instead of us + re
On 06/28/2012 09:22 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
That's not really true. We don't maintain the updates policy, FESCo
does.
Yes that's what I'm saying as in why is Fesco maintaining the update
policy instead of us + releng?
We don't maintain Bodhi, infrastructure does. We don't maintain
Bugz
On Thu, 2012-06-28 at 10:21 -0600, Tim Flink wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 15:33:49 -0500
> Tim Flink wrote:
>
> > So, I've been working to update the script that updates the blocker
> > bug tracking page.
>
>
> > What I'm looking to add is:
> > - hidable sections
> > - better formatting (co
On Thu, 2012-06-28 at 15:57 +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
> It's us ( QA+Releng ) that have to implement maintain and oversee
> these processes to the best of our ability and a yay or nay at some
> meeting from people that aren't actively working on this stuff makes
> absolutely no sense
T
On Thu, 2012-06-28 at 13:11 +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
>
> Do you really want a bugzilla report for each time, when
> dependencies break?
>
> No then again we should be catching those dependency breaks elsewhere
AutoQA depcheck already does, and it's pretty rel
On Thu, 2012-06-28 at 12:05 +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
>
> I'm not seeing this as any additional obstacle for reporters seriously
> how harder is it to provide a link to a bug report vs filling in the
> comment field?
Well, the extra work is in filing the bug report, if it doesn't alrea
I found during preupgrade process from F16 to F17 that preupgrade does not
verify that the packages downloaded for the upgrade are not corrupted.
If any package is corrupted for any reason in preupgrade repo, this causes
the upgrade process to fail somewhere in the middle, leaving system in
un
On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 15:33:49 -0500
Tim Flink wrote:
> So, I've been working to update the script that updates the blocker
> bug tracking page.
> What I'm looking to add is:
> - hidable sections
> - better formatting (column width etc.)
> - decent looking css
I've done some UI tweaking an
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 2:57 PM, Karel Volný wrote:
> Dne Čt 28. června 2012 12:11:02, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson napsal(a):
> > On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 10:45 AM, Karel Volný
> wrote:
> > > I simply don't like this idea, there is enough bugzilla noise
> > > and enough bureaucracy (read: obstacles) fo
Dne Čt 28. června 2012 12:11:02, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson napsal(a):
> On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 10:45 AM, Karel Volný
wrote:
> > I simply don't like this idea, there is enough bugzilla noise
> > and enough bureaucracy (read: obstacles) for anyone wanting
> > to contribute (yes, even just clicking +1/-
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 03:40:17PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> Hmm, so if grub would also install itself into /efi/boot/bootx64.efi
> then this problem would just go away as that is the default file that
> the EFI bios will execute. This would enable disk images that just boot
> without any
On 06/28/2012 10:08 AM, Kamil Paral wrote:
Having sent that mail it became obvious that what's happened is that
your
new x220 board doesn't have the efi boot variable set. Some machines
allow
you to boot from a file, in which case it'll be
/efi/fedora/grubx64.efi .
If your firmware doesn't have
> Having sent that mail it became obvious that what's happened is that
> your
> new x220 board doesn't have the efi boot variable set. Some machines
> allow
> you to boot from a file, in which case it'll be
> /efi/fedora/grubx64.efi .
> If your firmware doesn't have that, you'll need to boot some
On 06/28/2012 09:40 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Thu, 28.06.12 09:29, Peter Jones (pjo...@redhat.com) wrote:
Having sent that mail it became obvious that what's happened is that your
new x220 board doesn't have the efi boot variable set. Some machines allow
you to boot from a file, in whic
On 06/28/2012 09:25 AM, Peter Jones wrote:
On 06/28/2012 09:11 AM, Kamil Paral wrote:
If you are knowledgeable about UEFI, I'll welcome your advice. This is the
issue I encountered:
1. I enabled UEFI mode in BIOS in Lenovo X220 (more exactly I set UEFI as the
preferred method).
2. I installed F
On 06/28/2012 09:11 AM, Kamil Paral wrote:
If you are knowledgeable about UEFI, I'll welcome your advice. This is the
issue I encountered:
1. I enabled UEFI mode in BIOS in Lenovo X220 (more exactly I set UEFI as the
preferred method).
2. I installed Fedora 17.
3. "Fedora" item appeared in BIO
If you are knowledgeable about UEFI, I'll welcome your advice. This is the
issue I encountered:
1. I enabled UEFI mode in BIOS in Lenovo X220 (more exactly I set UEFI as the
preferred method).
2. I installed Fedora 17.
3. "Fedora" item appeared in BIOS in "Boot order" and also in the boot manage
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 12:12 PM, Matthias Runge
wrote:
> On 28/06/12 14:05, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
> >
> > I'm not seeing this as any additional obstacle for reporters seriously
> > how harder is it to provide a link to a bug report vs filling in the
> > comment field?
> >
> > JBG
> >
> >
>
On 28/06/12 14:05, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
>
> I'm not seeing this as any additional obstacle for reporters seriously
> how harder is it to provide a link to a bug report vs filling in the
> comment field?
>
> JBG
>
>
Do you really want a bugzilla report for each time, when dependencies br
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 10:45 AM, Karel Volný wrote:
>
> I simply don't like this idea, there is enough bugzilla noise and
> enough bureaucracy (read: obstacles) for anyone wanting to
> contribute (yes, even just clicking +1/-1 karma is a valuable
> contribution ...)
>
This is no additional bure
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 11:09 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 11:54 AM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson
> wrote:
> > Just bringing this topic to the appropriate mailing list
> >
> > On the last kernel meeting [1] it was suggested negative karma points
> should
> > be linked to a report
I simply don't like this idea, there is enough bugzilla noise and
enough bureaucracy (read: obstacles) for anyone wanting to
contribute (yes, even just clicking +1/-1 karma is a valuable
contribution ...)
- is this opinion worth 0.02€? :-)
btw, reading the subject line, at first I understood it
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 1:09 AM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 11:54 AM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson
> wrote:
>> Just bringing this topic to the appropriate mailing list
>>
>> On the last kernel meeting [1] it was suggested negative karma points should
>> be linked to a reported bug
23 matches
Mail list logo
