On Thu, 2012-07-05 at 20:36 +0200, Till Maas wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 03, 2012 at 11:07:19AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Mon, 2012-07-02 at 09:07 +0200, Till Maas wrote:
> > > On Sun, Jul 01, 2012 at 05:58:44PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > > > On Sat, 2012-06-30 at 11:09 +0200, Till Maas
On 07/05/2012 07:13 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
There was an upgrade shortly before the F17 release. Bugzilla is now
pretty current (version 4.2.1-2.2).
Keyword here being "now"...
JBG
--
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/l
On Thu, Jul 05, 2012 at 18:50:15 +,
"\"Jóhann B. Guðmundsson\"" wrote:
In addition to that we are ages behind upstream bugzilla release (
last time I checked ) which we otherwise might not be if we had our
own instead of that corporate dictated one.
There was an upgrade shortly before
On 07/05/2012 06:36 PM, Till Maas wrote:
From my point of view the proposed ideas are a lot easier than
setting up and maintaining a second Bugzilla instance.
I'm not sure why your are referring to two bugzilla instances since
there would be only one for the project the Fedora instance in any
On Tue, Jul 03, 2012 at 11:07:19AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-07-02 at 09:07 +0200, Till Maas wrote:
> > On Sun, Jul 01, 2012 at 05:58:44PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > > On Sat, 2012-06-30 at 11:09 +0200, Till Maas wrote:
> >
> > > > If for example all Bugzilla notification
On Mon, 2012-07-02 at 09:07 +0200, Till Maas wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 01, 2012 at 05:58:44PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Sat, 2012-06-30 at 11:09 +0200, Till Maas wrote:
>
> > > If for example all Bugzilla notification mails are screened for changes
> > > in the whiteboard field, it would be
On Sun, Jul 01, 2012 at 05:58:44PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Sat, 2012-06-30 at 11:09 +0200, Till Maas wrote:
> > If for example all Bugzilla notification mails are screened for changes
> > in the whiteboard field, it would be enough for someone to add it
> > properly once to notify the b
On Sat, 2012-06-30 at 11:09 +0200, Till Maas wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 04:38:18PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Sat, 2012-06-30 at 01:13 +0200, Till Maas wrote:
> >
> > > Nevertheless it seems to be easy to workaround, for example by using the
> > > whiteboard as an additional way to
On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 04:38:18PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Sat, 2012-06-30 at 01:13 +0200, Till Maas wrote:
>
> > Nevertheless it seems to be easy to workaround, for example by using the
> > whiteboard as an additional way to propose blocker/NTH bugs. It should
> > even be possible to w
On Sat, 2012-06-30 at 01:13 +0200, Till Maas wrote:
> Nevertheless it seems to be easy to workaround, for example by using the
> whiteboard as an additional way to propose blocker/NTH bugs. It should
> even be possible to write an additional service that scans for bugs with
> the respective whiteb
On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 01:34:53PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> Well, there's a lot of stuff to Bugzilla which is local site
> configuration, and there _are_ cases where the configuration of RH
> Bugzilla is compromised by having to work for both RHEL and Fedora.
>
> To give an example I've bee
On Fri, 2012-06-29 at 21:26 +0200, Till Maas wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 11:13:05PM +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
>
> > Yeah with regards to Bugzilla, our infrastructure team really ought
> > to be maintaining our own private instance of it. If it continues to
> > be run by RH enginee
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 11:13:05PM +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> Yeah with regards to Bugzilla, our infrastructure team really ought
> to be maintaining our own private instance of it. If it continues to
> be run by RH engineering ops limiting us by some RHEL Customer rules
> and policie
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 + releng?
You could propose (to fesco) tha
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 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
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 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
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 which kinda makes sense if you think about it.
>
> What that mean
On Wed, 2012-06-27 at 18:34 +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> On 06/27/2012 06:19 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > It's hardly 'sticking their nose in'. The updates policy is owned by
> > FESCo, not by us.
>
> WooT?
>
> > In practice, I'd say the point is kinda moot because
> > this is clea
On 06/27/2012 06:19 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
It's hardly 'sticking their nose in'. The updates policy is owned by
FESCo, not by us.
WooT?
In practice, I'd say the point is kinda moot because
this is clearly Bodhi 2.0 stuff, and we've been waiting for Bodhi 2.0
forever and a day, and it'll
On Wed, 2012-06-27 at 15:54 +, 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 which kinda makes sense if you
> think about it.
>
> What that
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 4:58 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 15:54:18 +,
> "Jóhann B. Gušmundsson" wrote:
>
>>
>> I myself give +1 to implement this since give negative feedback without
>> linking to an already existing bug report helps no one.
>>
>> There was also ment
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 15:54:18 +,
"Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
I myself give +1 to implement this since give negative feedback without
linking to an already existing bug report helps no one.
There was also mentioned on the meeting that reporters seem to be giving
negative karma for b
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 which kinda makes sense if you think
about it.
What that means is that you ( as in reporter ) will no longer be able to
provide negati
34 matches
Mail list logo
