On Mon, 2016-03-14 at 13:19 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 1:05 PM, Adam Williamson
> wrote:
>
> >
> > For now I'm inclined to similarly try and keep the validation stuff as
> > simple as possible, so I won't try to recreate the 'TC' / 'RC'
> > distinction at the validation
On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 1:05 PM, Adam Williamson
wrote:
> For now I'm inclined to similarly try and keep the validation stuff as
> simple as possible, so I won't try to recreate the 'TC' / 'RC'
> distinction at the validation event level, but instead the events will
> follow the Pungi compose ver
On Mon, 2016-03-14 at 07:29 -0400, Kamil Paral wrote:
> >
> > releng flipped any necessary switches for
> > 'release' behaviour.
> I think this is the only meaningful argument for having TC/RC
> distinction. Personally I'm fine with it both ways. It's nice to see
> which images are the ones "almos
On Mon, 2016-03-14 at 11:52 +, Peter Robinson wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 11:29 AM, Kamil Paral wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > releng flipped any necessary switches for
> > > 'release' behaviour.
> > I think this is the only meaningful argument for having TC/RC
> > distinction. Personally I'm f
On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 11:29 AM, Kamil Paral wrote:
>> releng flipped any necessary switches for
>> 'release' behaviour.
>
> I think this is the only meaningful argument for having TC/RC distinction.
> Personally I'm fine with it both ways. It's nice to see which images are the
> ones "almost r
> releng flipped any necessary switches for
> 'release' behaviour.
I think this is the only meaningful argument for having TC/RC distinction.
Personally I'm fine with it both ways. It's nice to see which images are the
ones "almost ready", but I'm not sure it's worth having more bits for releng
On Wed, 2016-03-09 at 13:57 -0700, Chris Murphy wrote:
>
> So if "RC-1.8" passes all tests and is a go, how is this renamed? Or
> is it not renamed?
> I assume you don't want to do a production compose at this point
> because then it's a compose that isn't tested, while ostensibly
> identical the
On Wed, 2016-03-09 at 13:52 -0500, John Dulaney wrote:
> > == 2. N indicates TC/RC, R indicates number ==
> > > >
> > > > In this scheme, we'd build e.g. 'Alpha 1.1' (Alpha TC1), 'Alpha
> > > > 1.2'
> > > > (Alpha TC2), 'Alpha 2.1' (Alpha RC1), 'Alpha 2.2' (Alpha RC2).
> > > >
> > > > This seems
On Wed, 2016-03-09 at 13:47 -0700, Chris Murphy wrote:
> a. Work with Pungi's currently-expected label format
> In this format option, MILESTONE-N.R would be
> MILESTONE= alpha, beta, RC
> N = arbitrary integer
> R = arbitrary integer
>
> Can N and R be 0? Or must it be 1-9?
At least according t
On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 1:47 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 11:16 AM, Adam Williamson
> wrote:
>> Hi folks!
>>
>> So we're now frozen for Alpha and we have an anaconda build with
>> blocker fixes in updates-testing...I guess this means it's a good time
>> to decide what to do abo
On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 11:16 AM, Adam Williamson
wrote:
> Hi folks!
>
> So we're now frozen for Alpha and we have an anaconda build with
> blocker fixes in updates-testing...I guess this means it's a good time
> to decide what to do about milestone builds with Pungi 4. :)
>
> I'm assuming here tha
> Subject: Re: Pungi 4 milestone builds: proposals
> From: adamw...@fedoraproject.org
> To: test@lists.fedoraproject.org; rel-...@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2016 10:33:41 -0800
>
> On Wed, 2016-03-09 at 13:26 -0500, John Dulaney wrote:
>> .
>>>
&
On Wed, 2016-03-09 at 13:26 -0500, John Dulaney wrote:
> .
> >
> >
> > == 2. N indicates TC/RC, R indicates number ==
> >
> > In this scheme, we'd build e.g. 'Alpha 1.1' (Alpha TC1), 'Alpha 1.2'
> > (Alpha TC2), 'Alpha 2.1' (Alpha RC1), 'Alpha 2.2' (Alpha RC2).
> >
> > This seems like the close
.
>
> == 2. N indicates TC/RC, R indicates number ==
>
> In this scheme, we'd build e.g. 'Alpha 1.1' (Alpha TC1), 'Alpha 1.2'
> (Alpha TC2), 'Alpha 2.1' (Alpha RC1), 'Alpha 2.2' (Alpha RC2).
>
> This seems like the closest possible way to map to our current system.
> Again it's a bit weird at Final
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 26 Nov 2014 15:08:03 -0500
Gene Czarcinski wrote:
> On 11/24/2014 04:14 PM, Gene Czarcinski wrote:
> > I know we are into this product-zed stuff with lots of emphasis on
> > Live installs including Live Workstation but when was the last time
On 11/26/2014 03:08 PM, Gene Czarcinski wrote:
On 11/24/2014 04:14 PM, Gene Czarcinski wrote:
I know we are into this product-zed stuff with lots of emphasis on
Live installs including Live Workstation but when was the last time
pungi has been successfully run? Yes, I know that TC3 was built b
On 11/24/2014 04:14 PM, Gene Czarcinski wrote:
I know we are into this product-zed stuff with lots of emphasis on
Live installs including Live Workstation but when was the last time
pungi has been successfully run? Yes, I know that TC3 was built by
something but was pungi involved? I have bee
On 25.11.2014 20:06, Gene Czarcinski wrote:
> On 11/25/2014 07:50 AM, poma wrote:
>> On 25.11.2014 01:30, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
>>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>
>>> On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 15:37:06 -0800
>>> Adam Williamson wrote:
>>>
On Mon, 2014-11-24 at 23:25 +0100, po
On 11/25/2014 07:50 AM, poma wrote:
On 25.11.2014 01:30, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 15:37:06 -0800
Adam Williamson wrote:
On Mon, 2014-11-24 at 23:25 +0100, poma wrote:
On 24.11.2014 22:35, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Mon, 2014-11-
On 25.11.2014 01:30, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 15:37:06 -0800
> Adam Williamson wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 2014-11-24 at 23:25 +0100, poma wrote:
>>> On 24.11.2014 22:35, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Mon, 2014-11-24 at 16:14 -0500,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 15:37:06 -0800
Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-11-24 at 23:25 +0100, poma wrote:
> > On 24.11.2014 22:35, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2014-11-24 at 16:14 -0500, Gene Czarcinski wrote:
> > >> I know we are into this
On Mon, 2014-11-24 at 23:25 +0100, poma wrote:
> On 24.11.2014 22:35, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Mon, 2014-11-24 at 16:14 -0500, Gene Czarcinski wrote:
> >> I know we are into this product-zed stuff with lots of emphasis on Live
> >> installs including Live Workstation but when was the last tim
On 24.11.2014 22:35, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-11-24 at 16:14 -0500, Gene Czarcinski wrote:
>> I know we are into this product-zed stuff with lots of emphasis on Live
>> installs including Live Workstation but when was the last time pungi has
>> been successfully run? Yes, I know tha
On Mon, 2014-11-24 at 16:14 -0500, Gene Czarcinski wrote:
> I know we are into this product-zed stuff with lots of emphasis on Live
> installs including Live Workstation but when was the last time pungi has
> been successfully run? Yes, I know that TC3 was built by something but
> was pungi inv
On 29-08-2011 20:20, Jens Falsmar Oechsler wrote:
> Hello there
> I'm trying out Pungi build on Fedora 16 "branch":
> pungi --force --nosource --nodebuginfo --cachedir=/home/joe/Pungibuild/cache
> -G
> -C -B -I --flavor Fedora --name Fedora --ver 16 -c
> /home/joe/fedora-16-pre-install.ks
> It gi
25 matches
Mail list logo