On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 1:10 PM Adam Williamson
wrote:
>
> Let's be clear about what we mean by 'waiving'. Actually I'd like to
> avoid using that word at all (yes I know I did it once, I edited my
> mail to take them out but missed one).
>
> We are *not* 'waiving' the criterion. We are *not* deci
Beta is go! Time to shift our focus to the final blockers, of which
there are a few.
Action summary
Accepted blockers
-
1. gnome-control-center — can't turn zoom off once enabled — NEW
ACTION: upstream to diagnose and fix issue
2. gnome-control-center — Gnome
On Fri, 2019-09-13 at 12:34 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 10:43 AM Adam Williamson
> wrote:
> > On Fri, 2019-09-13 at 13:53 +0200, Kamil Paral wrote:
> > > As I feel it (and would like to have it), "automatic blockers" imply they
> > > are such core and basic issues that the
On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 10:43 AM Adam Williamson
wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2019-09-13 at 13:53 +0200, Kamil Paral wrote:
> > As I feel it (and would like to have it), "automatic blockers" imply they
> > are such core and basic issues that they are non-questionable and
> > non-waivable (except by FESCo, w
On Fri, 2019-09-13 at 13:53 +0200, Kamil Paral wrote:
> As I feel it (and would like to have it), "automatic blockers" imply they
> are such core and basic issues that they are non-questionable and
> non-waivable (except by FESCo, which is itself part of the same policy and
> marked to have godly p
On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 5:54 AM Kamil Paral wrote:
>
> I'd like to revive this topic. Yesterday [1], the last minute blocker policy
> was misused (at least in my eyes) to ignore the workstation oversize bug [2],
> which was already accepted as an automatic blocker. I believe it was an
> inappro
On Fri, 2019-09-13 at 08:44 -0400, Ben Cotton wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 8:09 AM Kamil Paral wrote:
> > Related to Workstation image oversize bug [1] and the related
> > Go/NoGo meeting, I'd like to propose to rename the image-related
> > term "target size" to "maximum size".
>
> +1. I see
OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20190912.n.2
NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20190913.n.1
= SUMMARY =
Added images:1
Dropped images: 0
Added packages: 4
Dropped packages:1
Upgraded packages: 33
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 1.72 MiB
Size of dropped packages
No missing expected images.
Compose FAILS proposed Rawhide gating check!
5 of 45 required tests failed, 2 results missing
openQA tests matching unsatisfied gating requirements shown with **GATING**
below
Unsatisfied gating requirements that could not be mapped to openQA tests:
FAILED: compose.clo
No missing expected images.
Failed openQA tests: 4/152 (x86_64), 1/2 (arm)
Old failures (same test failed in Fedora-31-20190912.n.0):
ID: 450214 Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso modularity_tests
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/450214
ID: 450249 Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso desktop_
OLD: Fedora-31-20190912.n.0
NEW: Fedora-31-20190913.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:0
Dropped images: 8
Added packages: 0
Dropped packages:0
Upgraded packages: 1
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 0 B
Size of dropped packages:0 B
Size of upgraded
On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 8:09 AM Kamil Paral wrote:
>
> Related to Workstation image oversize bug [1] and the related Go/NoGo
> meeting, I'd like to propose to rename the image-related term "target size"
> to "maximum size".
+1. I see no downsides to this.
--
Ben Cotton
He / Him / His
Fedora
Related to Workstation image oversize bug [1] and the related Go/NoGo
meeting, I'd like to propose to rename the image-related term "target size"
to "maximum size". The rename would affect the following pages:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/31/ReleaseBlocking
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki
On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 3:11 AM Adam Williamson
wrote:
> On Fri, 2019-08-09 at 19:04 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Fri, 2019-08-09 at 18:26 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2019-07-24 at 10:04 -0400, pmkel...@frontier.com wrote:
> > > > I got feedback from Adam and Ben today; so
14 matches
Mail list logo
