On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 05:05:38PM -0500, James Antill wrote:
> $releasever just changes the variable, so the URLs are all the same ...
> just with different variables. Specifically:
>
> mirrorlist=https://mirrors.fedoraproject.org/metalink?repo=fedora-$releasever&arch=$basearch
>
> ...is never
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 04:29:31PM -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Am I missing something? Do people think this would be better, or worse?
It makes it harder to run repoquery against rawhide, because one would
need to adjust the releasever value everytime rawhide is branched. But
if --releasever=
2010/2/25 James Antill :
> On Thu, 2010-02-25 at 16:29 -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote:
>
>> Going over the various usage cases:
>>
>> 1) Release has not yet branched, want to switch, or use rawhide packges
>>
>> Currently:
>> yum install fedora-release-rawhide
>> yum --enablerepo=rawhide ...
>>
Hi.
On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 22:29:21 +0100, Thomas Spura wrote:
> Here is the snipped, I intend to use:
> """
> %{_mpich2_load}
>
> # create ~/.mpd.conf, if it does not yet exist
> if [ -e ~/.mpd.conf ]; then
> # working locally, don't delete ~/.mpd.conf
> DONT_DEL="TRUE"
> else
> DONT_
Matthew Garrett wrote:
> What do those numbers mean?
They're documented in the specs.
Kevin Kofler
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Hi,
at the FESCo meeting on Tuesday, everyone except me seemed to be set on
wanting to disable the possibility to queue updates directly to stable in
Bodhi. The only reason this was not decided right there (with no outside
feedback) is that Matthew Garrett (mjg59) wants to write down a precise
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 13:16, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Some situations where I and others have used direct stable pushes in the
> past and where I think they're really warranted and should be used:
> * A new package which doesn't replace anything, and which I verified to work
> fine for me. It's cle
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 1:36 PM, Christof Damian wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 13:16, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> Some situations where I and others have used direct stable pushes in the
>> past and where I think they're really warranted and should be used:
>> * A new package which doesn't replace
On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 13:16:43 +0100, Kevin wrote:
> Hi,
>
> at the FESCo meeting on Tuesday, everyone except me seemed to be set on
> wanting to disable the possibility to queue updates directly to stable in
> Bodhi.
That would be a ridiculous decision. It would be much better to disable
that
On 02/26/2010 01:16 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Hi,
>
> at the FESCo meeting on Tuesday, everyone except me seemed to be set on
> wanting to disable the possibility to queue updates directly to stable in
> Bodhi. The only reason this was not decided right there (with no outside
> feedback) is that Ma
On Fr, 2010-02-26 at 13:16 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
[...]
> We really need more transparency in decision making!
[...]
> If you can think of more, please post them! But even if you just agree with
> me, please reply so the other FESCo members don't think it's just me!
+1
--
devel mailing list
Am Freitag, den 26.02.2010, 11:14 +0100 schrieb Ralf Ertzinger:
> Hi.
>
> On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 22:29:21 +0100, Thomas Spura wrote:
> > Here is the snipped, I intend to use:
> > """
> > %{_mpich2_load}
> >
> > # create ~/.mpd.conf, if it does not yet exist
> > if [ -e ~/.mpd.conf ]; then
> > #
On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 13:16 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
I think banning stable pushes is the right idea. None of your reasons is
very convincing.
> * A regression which causes big breakage at least for some people slipped
> through testing for whatever reason. We urgently want the fix to get out
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 01:16:43PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Hi,
>
> at the FESCo meeting on Tuesday, everyone except me seemed to be set on
> wanting to disable the possibility to queue updates directly to stable in
> Bodhi.
I may be remebering wrong, but an argument for bodhi against thos
Am Freitag, den 26.02.2010, 00:58 +0100 schrieb Dominik 'Rathann'
Mierzejewski:
> On Thursday, 25 February 2010 at 22:29, Thomas Spura wrote:
> > Hi list,
> >
> > I never saw this anywhere before, so I'd like to ask here first, before
> > doing so ;)
> >
> > Is it allowed to create a file ~/.mpd.
- "Matthias Clasen" wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 13:16 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>
> I think banning stable pushes is the right idea. None of your reasons
> is
> very convincing.
>
My packages are rarely tested and I forget them in testing phase for a
long time. Also fixing BR don't nee
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 08:14:13AM -0500, Marcela Maslanova wrote:
>
>- "Matthias Clasen" wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 13:16 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>>
>> I think banning stable pushes is the right idea. None of your reasons
>> is
>> very convincing.
>>
>My packages are rarely tested
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 02:07:05PM +0100, Patrice Dumas wrote:
>On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 01:16:43PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> at the FESCo meeting on Tuesday, everyone except me seemed to be set on
>> wanting to disable the possibility to queue updates directly to stable in
>> Bodhi
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 01:16:43PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> I would like to collect feedback on this issue. If you want to disable
> direct stable pushes, why? Could there be a less radical solution to that
> problem (e.g. a policy discouraging direct stable pushes for some specific
> types
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 8:14 AM, Marcela Maslanova wrote:
>
> - "Matthias Clasen" wrote:
>
>>
>> I think banning stable pushes is the right idea. None of your reasons
>> is
>> very convincing.
>>
+1
Another annoying issue is updates with no explanations. There is a
"Notes" field in bodhi that
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 2:23 PM, Till Maas wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 01:16:43PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>
>> I would like to collect feedback on this issue. If you want to disable
>> direct stable pushes, why? Could there be a less radical solution to that
>> problem (e.g. a policy disco
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 4:21 AM, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 03:59 +, Colin Walters wrote:
>>
>> So here's what I propose. We create a spin, hosted in
>> spin-kickstarts.ks, called "fedora-virt-server.ks", which simply
>> reflects @base from comps, plus openssh-server.
>
> op
- "Josh Boyer" wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 08:14:13AM -0500, Marcela Maslanova wrote:
> >
> >- "Matthias Clasen" wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 13:16 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> >>
> >> I think banning stable pushes is the right idea. None of your
> reasons
> >> is
> >> ve
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 01:16:43PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>Hi,
>
>at the FESCo meeting on Tuesday, everyone except me seemed to be set on
>wanting to disable the possibility to queue updates directly to stable in
>Bodhi. The only reason this was not decided right there (with no outside
>feed
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 4:26 AM, Garrett Holmstrom
wrote:
>
> The Cloud SIG is working on that type of thing right now, kickstart and
> all. (Actually we already have a proposed kickstart that's more minimal
> than that if you want to take a look at it.) I recommend subscribing to
> the cloud li
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 02:23:33PM +0100, Till Maas wrote:
>On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 01:16:43PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>
>> I would like to collect feedback on this issue. If you want to disable
>> direct stable pushes, why? Could there be a less radical solution to that
>> problem (e.g. a pol
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 08:20:10AM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 08:14:13AM -0500, Marcela Maslanova wrote:
> >My packages are rarely tested and I forget them in testing phase for a
> >long time. Also fixing BR don't need testing. I simply need push
> >immediately the new/fixe
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 5:46 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Hi,
>
> at the FESCo meeting on Tuesday, everyone except me seemed to be set on
> wanting to disable the possibility to queue updates directly to stable in
> Bodhi. The only reason this was not decided right there (with no outside
> feedback)
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 1:43 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> [...]
> Unconvincing, though. History has shown that some packagers still managed
> to push new packages that suffered from broken deps [..]
Well than the review process failed ...
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http
Christof Damian wrote:
> Will there be a minimum number of days a package has to stay in testing?
I have no idea. I'm against any minimum number of days, but I'm against the
whole proposal anyway.
Kevin Kofler
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproj
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 08:36:41AM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 02:23:33PM +0100, Till Maas wrote:
> >On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 01:16:43PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> >
> >> I would like to collect feedback on this issue. If you want to disable
> >> direct stable pushes, why?
On 02/26/2010 06:48 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> What do those numbers mean?
>
> They're documented in the specs.
You obviously have not read the specs. :)
Jeff
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinf
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 12:48:05PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > What do those numbers mean?
>
> They're documented in the specs.
Really? So what's the difference between 0x80 and 0x81?
--
Matthew Garrett | mj...@srcf.ucam.org
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedorap
Michael Schwendt wrote:
> That would be a ridiculous decision. It would be much better to disable
> that feature only for those update submitters who really have been
> dilettantish enough to use it inappropriately more than once.
Yeah, that's a good idea. We really need to avoid punishing everyon
Compose started at Fri Feb 26 08:15:08 UTC 2010
Broken deps for i386
--
blahtexml-0.6-5.fc12.i686 requires libxerces-c.so.28
doodle-0.6.7-5.fc12.i686 requires libextractor.so.1
easystroke-0.5.2-1.fc13.i686 requires lib
On Friday 26 February 2010 14:32:16 Marcela Maslanova wrote:
> - "Josh Boyer" wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 08:14:13AM -0500, Marcela Maslanova wrote:
> > >- "Matthias Clasen" wrote:
> > >> On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 13:16 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > >>
> > >> I think banning stable p
Once upon a time, Kevin Kofler said:
> at the FESCo meeting on Tuesday, everyone except me seemed to be set on
Do you really see _everything_ as FESCo (or the world) vs. Kevin Kofler?
I read over the FESCo logs from time to time, and your repeated
foot-stomping on the DSO linking change was rath
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> * Many (most) packages get pushed without testing. I consider people who
> believe package to see tested in "testing", to be in error.
> To me, "testing" isn't much more but a delay queue.
Good point.
> * Some maintainers ignore feedback on "packages in testing".
Indeed,
On Fri, 26 Feb 2010, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 08:14:13AM -0500, Marcela Maslanova wrote:
> >
> >- "Matthias Clasen" wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 13:16 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> >>
> >> I think banning stable pushes is the right idea. None of your reasons
> >> is
On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 08:26:59 -0500, Orcan wrote:
> Another annoying issue is updates with no explanations. There is a
> "Notes" field in bodhi that many people just ignore for an unknown
> reason. Any update with less than a specified number of characters
> (~40) in the Notes should also be banned
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 9:24 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 08:26:59 -0500, Orcan wrote:
>
>> Another annoying issue is updates with no explanations. There is a
>> "Notes" field in bodhi that many people just ignore for an unknown
>> reason. Any update with less than a specified
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 08:04:55AM -0600, Chris Adams wrote:
>
> EPEL has run this way for a while, and it doesn't seem to be a problem.
EPEL is very different. Packages in EPEL have been tested in fedora and so
will very rarely need hotfixes aor regression fixes (except for security
fixes, which
Kevin Kofler wrote:
> at the FESCo meeting on Tuesday, everyone except me seemed to be set
on wanting to disable the possibility to queue updates directly to
stable in Bodhi.
As you say, there are quite a lot of situations where direct stable
update is needed.
This proposal is probably inspired b
On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 14:07:05 +0100, Patrice wrote:
> I may be remebering wrong, but an argument for bodhi against those who
> wanted a simpler push mechanism (like wwhat was in the fedora extra days)
> and argued that bodhi will add more unecessary delays was that there
> always was the possibili
Once upon a time, Patrice Dumas said:
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 08:04:55AM -0600, Chris Adams wrote:
> > EPEL has run this way for a while, and it doesn't seem to be a problem.
>
> EPEL is very different. Packages in EPEL have been tested in fedora and so
> will very rarely need hotfixes aor regr
Kevin Kofler writes:
> Some situations where I and others have used direct stable pushes in the
> past and where I think they're really warranted and should be used:
You forgot security fixes. The proposed policy is insane.
regards, tom lane
--
devel mailing list
devel
On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 14:49:18 +0100, Till wrote:
> Imho it is more a perversion of how it is meant to be. This package was
> tested before it went to updates-testing and therefore went straight to
> stable. But the majority of packages goes to updates-testing and is not
> tested by someone else but
Matthias Clasen wrote:
> But presumably we still want to test the fix, to avoid introducing yet
> another regression ?!
[snip]
> Just go up to your first argument: the breage slips through. That is
> exactly what happens if your judgement of 'low risk' turns out to be
> wrong. And it will...
[snip
On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 14:42:29 +0100, drago01 wrote:
> > History has shown that some packagers still managed
> > to push new packages that suffered from broken deps [..]
>
> Well than the review process failed ...
Sometimes, not always. Don't forget that reviewers don't review builds
for all dist
Josh Boyer wrote:
> If nobody is testing your packages sitting in updates-testing, then maybe
> the users of that package
… who are using updates-testing …
> aren't hitting whatever you're fixing or aren't otherwise having other
> issues. What is the benefit of pushing an update if nobody cares?
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 09:41:34AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>Kevin Kofler writes:
>> Some situations where I and others have used direct stable pushes in the
>> past and where I think they're really warranted and should be used:
>
>You forgot security fixes. The proposed policy is insane.
There i
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 02:51:46PM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 17:34:50 +0100
> Till Maas wrote:
> > Maybe the meetbot could be patched to only accept a topic change
> > after a #agreed command was used (or some other command except the
> > #action command, that creates a help
Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
> Another annoying issue is updates with no explanations. There is a
> "Notes" field in bodhi that many people just ignore for an unknown
> reason. Any update with less than a specified number of characters
> (~40) in the Notes should also be banned.
That's a completely unrela
On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 14:55 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > The possibility to publish hot-fixes is most important.
>
> +1. Not being able to push those out quickly would really suck.
What sucks more is recent "hot-fixes" which were even more broken than
the issue they were trying to fix. They w
Josh Boyer wrote:
> Nobody said disallow direct-to-stable pushes completely, entirely, with no
> exceptions. That would indeed be absurd.
But the proposed exception procedures which were floated were so burdensome
and slow that they made the entire exception procedure effectively useless.
For e
Till Maas wrote:
> Imho it takes too long to get packages into updates-testing, if people
> are really interested in testing packages, they often seem to get
> packages directly from Koji, e.g. on this update I got 3 positive Karma
> points (one of them was anonymous) within 76 minutes after submit
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 03:35:58PM +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 14:07:05 +0100, Patrice wrote:
>
> > I may be remebering wrong, but an argument for bodhi against those who
> > wanted a simpler push mechanism (like wwhat was in the fedora extra days)
> > and argued that bodh
drago01 wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 1:43 PM, Michael Schwendt
> wrote:
>> [...]
>> Unconvincing, though. History has shown that some packagers still managed
>> to push new packages that suffered from broken deps [..]
>
> Well than the review process failed ...
Indeed.
Kevin Kofle
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 08:39:19AM -0600, Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Patrice Dumas said:
> > On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 08:04:55AM -0600, Chris Adams wrote:
> > > EPEL has run this way for a while, and it doesn't seem to be a problem.
> >
> > EPEL is very different. Packages in EPEL have
Patrice Dumas wrote:
> I may be remebering wrong, but an argument for bodhi against those who
> wanted a simpler push mechanism (like wwhat was in the fedora extra days)
> and argued that bodhi will add more unecessary delays was that there
> always was the possibility to push to stable for package
On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 15:59 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > I can't see a reason to make exceptions.
>
> What about the many valid reasons that have been brought up? E.g. if a
> package is destroying people's hardware, wouldn't you want the fix to go out
> BEFORE your hardware is dead?
I'd want
On Fri, 26 Feb 2010, Chris Adams wrote:
> EPEL has run this way for a while, and it doesn't seem to be a problem.
EPEL does not have a 6 month release cycle :)
Paul
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 16:09 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>
> Good point. Indeed, packages are often tested sufficiently before they even
> enter updates-testing. Even if pushes become more frequent, it can still
> happen if testing is called for on a fast medium like IRC and the fix
> touches man
Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
> Maybe some package rating included in PackageKit would be nice - for
> stable packages it's indicator that this package is worth to install, for
> testing package it would mean it's working (but again - who's going to
> rate it in pkgkit once installed).
That won't solve t
On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 10:28 -0500, Paul Wouters wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Feb 2010, Chris Adams wrote:
>
> > EPEL has run this way for a while, and it doesn't seem to be a problem.
>
> EPEL does not have a 6 month release cycle :)
>
The 6 month release cycle means you need to hurry to get your stuff
On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 13:16 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> at the FESCo meeting on Tuesday, everyone except me seemed to be set on
> wanting to disable the possibility to queue updates directly to stable in
> Bodhi. The only reason this was not decided right there (with no outside
> feedback) is
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 09:53:16AM +0100, Till Maas wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 05:05:38PM -0500, James Antill wrote:
>
> > $releasever just changes the variable, so the URLs are all the same ...
> > just with different variables. Specifically:
> >
> > mirrorlist=https://mirrors.fedoraproje
Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 14:55 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> > The possibility to publish hot-fixes is most important.
>>
>> +1. Not being able to push those out quickly would really suck.
>
> What sucks more is recent "hot-fixes" which were even more broken than
> the issue
Michael Schwendt wrote:
> Doesn't sound right. FE could push to stable always and much more quickly,
> too. What was missing was a convenient interface for packagers which they
> could use to decide between testing and stable or whether not to push a
> build at all. It was necessary to submit speci
Chris Adams wrote:
> Every time a package is built, it is susceptible to new bugs. Packaging
> bugs, build requirement changes, and software bugs all creep in, and not
> trying to ram things out the door as fast as possible seems like a good
> idea.
But EPEL has a completely different target audi
On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 16:23 +0100, Patrice Dumas wrote:
> Because EPEL has to be very stable, so additional time spent in testing is
> even better, for example for reasons you highlight below. I never said
> that packages should not go through testing in EPEL! But Fedora is another
> thing.
The
On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 06:59:59 -0800, Jesse wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 14:55 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > > The possibility to publish hot-fixes is most important.
> >
> > +1. Not being able to push those out quickly would really suck.
>
> What sucks more is recent "hot-fixes" which were ev
Tom Lane wrote:
> You forgot security fixes.
They'd probably be excepted. But that leaves (among other things) the
problem of regressions caused by security fixes (see the D-Bus and
Thunderbird fiascos, and several less fatal ones), fixes for those need to
go out ASAP.
But I agree that banning
On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 16:20 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Jesse Keating wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 14:55 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> >> > The possibility to publish hot-fixes is most important.
> >>
> >> +1. Not being able to push those out quickly would really suck.
> >
> > What sucks m
Josh Boyer wrote:
> There is no proposed policy yet. What you are replying to is Kevin's take
> on a discussion that was supposed to lead to a policy being drafted.
Yet it would almost have been voted with no clear policy, it was just mjg59
pointing that out which stopped that.
Kevin Ko
On Fri, 26 Feb 2010, Jesse Keating wrote:
>> +1. Not being able to push those out quickly would really suck.
>
> What sucks more is recent "hot-fixes" which were even more broken than
> the issue they were trying to fix. They were pushed directly to stable
> and broke a significant number of syst
Michael Schwendt wrote:
> Nonsense. Such arbitrary rules will only drive off packagers. The field in
> an update request may be empty because the list of bugzilla tickets is
> sufficient and because the package %changelog adds further details.
>
> It would be wrong to shut the door for everyone ju
Josh Boyer wrote:
> The time period is mere speculation on your part.
It's not just mere speculation, the idea has been brought up by nirik,
citing EPEL as precedent:
[begin quote (from the meeting log)]
Feb 23 21:40:50 * nirik notes the maintainer also requested a push to
stable in epel,
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 14:49:18 +0100,
Till Maas wrote:
>
> Imho it is more a perversion of how it is meant to be. This package was
> tested before it went to updates-testing and therefore went straight to
> stable. But the majority of packages goes to updates-testing and is not
> tested by so
Jesse Keating wrote:
> If the update is to fix an issue as dire as you say it would be, there
> would be no shortage of people who would be willing to grab the package
> from the bodhi link and test it out, and the maintainer would have no
> problem spending a little effort to find people to do thi
Michael Schwendt wrote:
> Sometimes, not always. Don't forget that reviewers don't review builds
> for all dists, but packagers often publish mass-builds for multiple dists
> without prior testing.
In practice that is not often a source of trouble. (Though new packages are
somewhat more likely t
On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 09:28:53 -0500, Orcan wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 9:24 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 08:26:59 -0500, Orcan wrote:
> >
> >> Another annoying issue is updates with no explanations. There is a
> >> "Notes" field in bodhi that many people just ignore for
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 04:40:46PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> That was my suggestion. All I got was negative comments (AIUI, nobody else
> wanted anything less than a majority of FESCo to be able to approve direct
> stable pushes, at least nobody said otherwise in the meeting), and even
> out
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 04:29:31PM -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> New:
> yum --releasever= upgrade
>
> Am I missing something? Do people think this would be better, or worse?
Is the releasever option a yum F13 feature? On F12 it complains that
it is not a valid option.
Also repoquery return
Parag N(पराग़) wrote:
> Gr8, maintainers already got overhead by introducing branched F-13
> and devel branches which made people to stop pushing updates to F-13
> as we need to push them using bodhi and now bodhi also got
> restrictions. I think people will stop contributing to Fedora now
> after
On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 16:12:36 +0100, Kevin wrote:
> > Doesn't sound right. FE could push to stable always and much more quickly,
> > too. What was missing was a convenient interface for packagers which they
> > could use to decide between testing and stable or whether not to push a
> > build at all
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 10:29:00 -0500,
Matthias Clasen wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 10:28 -0500, Paul Wouters wrote:
> > On Fri, 26 Feb 2010, Chris Adams wrote:
> >
> > > EPEL has run this way for a while, and it doesn't seem to be a problem.
> >
> > EPEL does not have a 6 month release cyc
On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 16:40 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Transparency means asking for feedback BEFORE writing the policy. The sooner
> you involve the community, the better. Putting out a policy as "take it or
> leave it", or worse "take it, you have to, we voted it through already" is
> not tr
On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 16:40:46 +0100
Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Josh Boyer wrote:
> > The time period is mere speculation on your part.
>
> It's not just mere speculation, the idea has been brought up by
> nirik, citing EPEL as precedent:
> [begin quote (from the meeting log)]
> Feb 23 21:40:50 * n
On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 16:17 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Most
> often what works on Fedora n also works on Fedora m. It's not like the
> reviewer tested on Slackware or OS X. ;-)
"Most often". Sure, that seems good enough to throw potential crap at
users. Our os "most often" works. Don't wor
On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 16:49 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>
> Could happen also with security updates. E.g. the recent gnome-screensaver
> security update visually corrupted the Fedora and GNOME screensavers. Rather
> harmless, but in other cases (e.g. kernel upgrades) a trade-off is made
> betwe
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 19:11:30 +0530,
"Parag N(पराग़)" wrote:
>
> Gr8, maintainers already got overhead by introducing branched F-13
> and devel branches which made people to stop pushing updates to F-13
> as we need to push them using bodhi and now bodhi also got
> restrictions. I think peop
On 2/26/2010 7:26, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
> Another annoying issue is updates with no explanations. There is a
> "Notes" field in bodhi that many people just ignore for an unknown
> reason. Any update with less than a specified number of characters
> (~40) in the Notes should also be banned.
What if
On 2/26/2010 6:16, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> at the FESCo meeting on Tuesday, everyone except me seemed to be set on
> wanting to disable the possibility to queue updates directly to stable in
> Bodhi. The only reason this was not decided right there (with no outside
> feedback) is that Matthew Garrett
On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 08:26:47 -0800, Jesse wrote:
> I think this conversation is derailed by the "must go into
> updates-testing first" aspect. This isn't the intention. The intention
> as I see it is that updates must be tested before they go to stable.
Can you expand on "must be tested"?
Some
Jesse Keating (jkeat...@redhat.com) said:
> On Thu, 2010-02-25 at 16:29 -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> > Am I missing something? Do people think this would be better, or
> > worse?
>
> I muffed up fedora-release on rawhide, but here was my plan.
>
> rawhide:
> fedora-release requires fedora-r
Till Maas (opensou...@till.name) said:
> Is the releasever option a yum F13 feature? On F12 it complains that
> it is not a valid option.
>
> Also repoquery returns F12 results but accepts --releasever:
> $ repoquery --releasever=rawhide --repoid=fedora kernel
> kernel-0:2.6.31.5-127.fc12.x86_64
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 10:20:00AM -0600, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> While people using Fedora may want the latest stuff, I doubt that most of
> them care about time scales less than a month (I assume I am an exception)
> unless there is a bug they care about. In which case they can use the bug
> re
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 9:59 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
>> Another annoying issue is updates with no explanations. There is a
>> "Notes" field in bodhi that many people just ignore for an unknown
>> reason. Any update with less than a specified number of characters
>> (~40) in t
On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 09:29:51PM -0500, Jon Masters wrote:
> On Sun, 2010-02-21 at 15:36 -0500, Luke Macken wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 11:40:42PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > > Luke Macken writes:
> > > > A large number of updates currently suffer from duplicate IDs, and I
> > > > need to
1 - 100 of 231 matches
Mail list logo
