On Mon, 2010-12-06 at 16:19 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 12:40:25 -0500
> James Laska wrote:
>
> ...snip...
>
> > > * setup a remote test env that people could use to test things.
> >
> > I could use more details on this point. Is this talking about setting
> > up QA systems
On Mon, 2010-12-06 at 16:21 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 13:44:02 -0500
> James Laska wrote:
>
> ...snip...
>
> > So there is a lag time for mirrors to receive updates. Does anyone
> > know what that average time for mirrors to update is?
>
> It varies.
>
> I've been doing
On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 13:44:02 -0500
James Laska wrote:
...snip...
> So there is a lag time for mirrors to receive updates. Does anyone
> know what that average time for mirrors to update is?
It varies.
I've been doing pushes every day for a while now, I start them in the
morning and they usua
On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 12:40:25 -0500
James Laska wrote:
...snip...
> > * setup a remote test env that people could use to test things.
>
> I could use more details on this point. Is this talking about setting
> up QA systems hosted in Fedora infrastructure that any tester could
> login and use t
On Tue, 2010-11-30 at 10:51 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Nov 2010 09:31:31 +0100, Matthias wrote:
>
> > On 29/11/10 19:08, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2010-11-29 at 12:40 -0500, James Laska wrote:
> >
> > > Things that some people see as problematic are:
> > >
> > > * Hav
On Tue, 2010-11-30 at 07:48 -0600, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 09:31:31 +0100,
> Matthias Runge wrote:
> > >
> > >>> * allow packages with a %check section to go direct to stable.
> > >>
> > I think this is a bad idea. Just insert a null- %check section (package
> > gets a
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 09:31:31 +0100,
Matthias Runge wrote:
> >
> >>> * allow packages with a %check section to go direct to stable.
> >>
> I think this is a bad idea. Just insert a null- %check section (package
> gets a +1 from provenpackager, add a (pseudo-anonymous) +1 vote and
> voila: pa
On Tue, 30 Nov 2010 12:24:32 +0100, Matthias wrote:
> The bug reporter will probably verify the fixture for his bug. But,
> given the fact, this new version breaks other things, this could be
> possibly covered by a test case (in best case).
A _new version_ will need to stay in updates-testing to
On 30/11/10 10:51, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Nov 2010 09:31:31 +0100, Matthias wrote:
>
>> On 29/11/10 19:08, Adam Williamson wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2010-11-29 at 12:40 -0500, James Laska wrote:
>>
>>> Things that some people see as problematic are:
>>>
>>> * Having to wait a week to push a
On Tue, 30 Nov 2010 09:31:31 +0100, Matthias wrote:
> On 29/11/10 19:08, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Mon, 2010-11-29 at 12:40 -0500, James Laska wrote:
>
> > Things that some people see as problematic are:
> >
> > * Having to wait a week to push an update if you can't find testing
> > * Testin
On 29/11/10 19:08, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-11-29 at 12:40 -0500, James Laska wrote:
> Things that some people see as problematic are:
>
> * Having to wait a week to push an update if you can't find testing
> * Testing being required for packages with automated test suites
> * The de
- "Kevin Fenzi" wrote:
> * have a way to get interested testers notified on bodhi updates for
> packages
> they care about.
I think that's this one:
https://fedorahosted.org/bodhi/ticket/339
--
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/m
On Mon, 2010-11-29 at 10:08 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-11-29 at 12:40 -0500, James Laska wrote:
>
> > > * Just drop all the requirements/go back to before we had any updates
> > > criteria.
> >
> > Hmm, certainly an idea. I feel like this is definitely a step backward,
> > n
On Mon, 2010-11-29 at 19:04 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 12:40:25 -0500, James wrote:
>
> > > * updates that only modify the spec could have a lower requirement.
> > > (ie, to fix a packaging issue, no changes in the upstream software).
> >
> > All %obsoletes, %requires,
On Mon, 2010-11-29 at 12:40 -0500, James Laska wrote:
> > * Just drop all the requirements/go back to before we had any updates
> > criteria.
>
> Hmm, certainly an idea. I feel like this is definitely a step backward,
> not forward. Has the initial motivation for an updates policy gone away
On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 12:40:25 -0500, James wrote:
> > * updates that only modify the spec could have a lower requirement.
> > (ie, to fix a packaging issue, no changes in the upstream software).
>
> All %obsoletes, %requires, %provides, %files and %patch statements are
> only recorded in the .sp
On Mon, 2010-11-29 at 09:56 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> Greetings.
>
> On the devel list recently there was a long thread discussing how we
> could improve the current https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Updates_Policy
>
> I gathered up ALL the ideas people put forth that were concrete in a
> list fo
17 matches
Mail list logo
