Is anyone else seeing 100% CPU consumption in top for gnome-shell for the
entire installation process? This seems excessive for something that isn't
doing anything, or being interacted with.
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/3253801/Screen%20Shot%202012-10-24%20at%2010.48.58%20PM.png
Does it make sense
On Wed, 2012-10-24 at 20:10 -0600, Vincent Danen wrote:
> >What's your opinion on "moderate bugs that can't be fixed by
> >updates" (i.e. persistent flaws) as a Final blocker? Is that going too
> >far?
>
> I don't think that's going too far, but again it should be evaluated on
> a case-by-case ba
On Wed, 2012-10-24 at 19:38 -0600, Vincent Danen wrote:
> So if you're looking at alpha's as having all criticals fixed, I think
> you can say that is quite well understood and I don't think it's a
> problem.
>
> Important-impact issues in beta and release is totally doable. It's the
> lower-imp
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 05:06:41PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> What do folks think of this? Anyone want to tweak what severity issues
+1
> we block for when, or think the approach is bad? Thanks! We might not
> want to start at Alpha, on the basis that Alpha is supposed to be for
> testing *o
So, IIRC, we've vaguely considered this before, but never really come up
with a criterion proposal. But I think we need one or two, to explicitly
allow security issues to be blockers.
I *really* don't want to get into the business of defining what
constitutes a security issue, and what the severit
The following Fedora 17 Security updates need testing:
Age URL
6
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-16442/drupal7-7.16-1.fc17
108
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-10391/bcfg2-1.2.3-1.fc17
6
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-16440/
The following Fedora 16 Security updates need testing:
Age URL
6
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-16421/drupal7-7.16-1.fc16
108
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-10402/bcfg2-1.2.3-1.fc16
32
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-14452/
On Wed, 2012-10-24 at 19:02 +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> On 10/24/2012 06:15 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > Right. I do wish you wouldn't exaggerate things, Johann. The criteria
> > are a part of Fedora as a whole, they define what the project considers
> > minimum acceptable functionali
On 10/24/2012 06:15 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
Right. I do wish you wouldn't exaggerate things, Johann. The criteria
are a part of Fedora as a whole, they define what the project considers
minimum acceptable functionality for each release point. They are not
solely a QA issue, other teams clearly
This is one of those "it used to work, I think" things.
Fedora 18.
NetworkManager-0.9.7.0-6.git20121004.fc18.x86_64
On subnet with IPv6 address auto configuration enabled. NetworkManager
brings up interface, link-local (fe80) address is configured, however no
global address is configured.
Link
#fedora-qa: f18beta-blocker-review-5
Minutes:
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-qa/2012-10-24/f18beta-blocker-review-5.2012-10-24-16.01.html
Minutes (text):
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-qa/2012-10-24/f18b
On Wed, 2012-10-24 at 07:18 -0600, Tim Flink wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 09:48:47 +
> "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
>
> > On 10/24/2012 03:33 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > > criterion" - not done yet
> > > * "tflink to ask other interested parties (anaconda team,
> > > fesco...)
On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 09:48:47 +
"Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> On 10/24/2012 03:33 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > criterion" - not done yet
> > * "tflink to ask other interested parties (anaconda team,
> > fesco...) to look over the beta criteria and see if
> > there's anythi
Compose started at Wed Oct 24 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 >=
On 10/24/2012 03:33 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
criterion" - not done yet
* "tflink to ask other interested parties (anaconda team,
fesco...) to look over the beta criteria and see if there's
anything they feel should be dialled down" - not done yet
Since yo
> # F18 Beta Blocker Review meeting #5
> # Date: 2012-10-24
> # Time: 16:00 UTC [1] (12:00 EDT, 09:00 PDT)
> # Location: #fedora-qa on irc.freenode.net
Can't attend today, sorry, I'll be presenting Fedora at a university in
Ostrava. Hopefully someone else from Brno comes by.
--
test mailing list
On 23/10/12 22:35, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Tue, 2012-10-23 at 22:20 +0100, Frank Murphy wrote:
Seeing all the "obsolete" upgrade tests for Fedora 17 to 18
and having looked at
https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/946
Will Fedora 17 be fedup with F18?
Will beta be yummy?
I'm still hoping w
17 matches
Mail list logo
