Sorry, was quite busy with other stuff over the past few days and didn't
get around to answer this
On 03.06.2009 02:15, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Wed, Jun 03, 2009 at 01:08:15AM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
It IMHO shows a big and more and more pressing problem in Fedora:
On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 6:24 PM, Thorsten Leemhuisfed...@leemhuis.info wrote:
Not to forget
Jesse (as rel-eng lead in a quite important position) and his quest
to reduce the number of updates (which he gave up -- see earlier this
thread),
FTR, he actually said I've all *but* given up on my
On 06/03/2009 07:48 PM, Chuck Anderson wrote:
Not necessarily. I don't see why the Fedora Project couldn't qualify
as a Sponsored Participant on Internet2 [1]. In fact, Red Hat is
already connected in Raleigh.
I think this is because they're technically on NC State University.
~spot
--
On Thu, 4 Jun 2009, Tom \spot\ Callaway wrote:
On 06/03/2009 07:48 PM, Chuck Anderson wrote:
Not necessarily. I don't see why the Fedora Project couldn't qualify
as a Sponsored Participant on Internet2 [1]. In fact, Red Hat is
already connected in Raleigh.
I think this is because they're
On Thu, Jun 04, 2009 at 10:56:34AM -0400, Seth Vidal wrote:
On Thu, 4 Jun 2009, Tom \spot\ Callaway wrote:
On 06/03/2009 07:48 PM, Chuck Anderson wrote:
Not necessarily. I don't see why the Fedora Project couldn't qualify
as a Sponsored Participant on Internet2 [1]. In fact, Red Hat is
On Thu, 2009-06-04 at 19:29 -0700, John Poelstra wrote:
Seeking clarification... From my perspective, marketing machine has a
derogatory tone to it. Is that the intended tone?
If, yes, why? If no, never mind :)
There was no derogatory tone intended.
--
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- Freedom²
On 02.06.2009 22:30, Jesse Keating wrote:
On Tue, 2009-06-02 at 21:30 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
but if we get RC with the final name transferred to the
mirrors ahead of time then they can be updated relative quickly as well,
as only a few bit change.
We don't do this as it tends to
Kevin Kofler, Wed, 03 Jun 2009 01:29:35 +0200:
gmane.linux.redhat.fedora.testers
http://list.gmane.org/fedora-test-l...@redhat.com
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
On Tue, Jun 02, 2009 at 08:15:32PM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
We are facing some real limitations on our turn around time for
things at the moment and they are only going to get worse as we have
newer releases that will get the delta rpms. At the same time, the
same people are getting raked
On Wed, Jun 03, 2009 at 08:55:48AM -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote:
On Tue, Jun 02, 2009 at 08:15:32PM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
We are facing some real limitations on our turn around time for
things at the moment and they are only going to get worse as we have
newer releases that will get the
On 06/03/2009 02:38 PM, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
On 06/03/2009 09:01 AM, Josh Boyer wrote:
Oh, and time. Always need time. If you or spot could procure time, let me
know ;)
Man, if I knew how to do that, I'd be a lot wealthier than I am now. ;)
Extend the day to 36 hours
It might have helped to find the problem earlier -- I for example got
the impression that a lot of people had problems with the storage
rewrite and thus aborted their tests with Alpha or Beta.
There was no storage rewrite in the Alpha, so this isn't the case there.
For the beta, you are
Jesse Keating (jkeat...@redhat.com) said:
On Wed, 2009-06-03 at 13:49 -0400, Seth Vidal wrote:
And the optimization there is fairly well known. We need to read in and
not change the prestodelta file. It's on my short-ish createrepo list.
Hrm, bill thought it was something on the mash
On Wed, 3 Jun 2009, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Jesse Keating (jkeat...@redhat.com) said:
On Wed, 2009-06-03 at 13:49 -0400, Seth Vidal wrote:
And the optimization there is fairly well known. We need to read in and
not change the prestodelta file. It's on my short-ish createrepo list.
Hrm,
On Mon, Jun 01, 2009 at 06:45:07PM -0400, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
On 06/01/2009 06:45 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
If we had I2 in PHX this would get a lot faster.
We just need to hold some classes and get the PHX datacenter certified
as a University. ;)
Not necessarily. I don't see why the
On 01.06.2009 20:14, Jesse Keating wrote:
On Mon, 2009-06-01 at 19:49 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
On 29.05.2009 22:57, Jesse Keating wrote:
Thx for your reply and sorry, I didn't found time to answer earlier.
Some more comments:
[...]
- how about reducing the number or zero day updates
On 01.06.2009 21:50, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Mon, 2009-06-01 at 19:49 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
- should we set an way earlier freezes date for things like anaconda,
kernel, isolinux, grub and other crucial pieces to make sure they are
in
better shape a bit earlier and thus are less
Jesse Keating wrote:
On Mon, 2009-06-01 at 20:56 -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
Do you hard link the new release files to the ones identical in rawhide
so that rsync doesn't have to transfer them to places mirroring rawhide?
Yes and no. We do use hardlinks, however the mechanism that gets
Matt Domsch wrote:
On Mon, Jun 01, 2009 at 04:03:04PM -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote:
I'm getting out of my ken here, but could this be done in stages with
I2 connected hosts getting the bits early/first and then moving on to
others?
We need to move ~130GB to each of ~230 mirrors, in about 4
On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 3:02 PM, Matthew Woehlke
mw_tr...@users.sourceforge.net wrote:
Matt Domsch wrote:
What about dropping hierarchical mirroring altogether? Why hasn't someone
developed a distributed (i.e. bittorrent-like) system for mass mirroring?
:-)
--
Matthew
Please do not quote
Björn Persson wrote:
A program similar to Jigdo could speed this up. Transfer only the RPM
packages
(taking advantage of hard links) and information on what packages are in each
ISO image, and then recreate the ISO images at the destination. That way each
package would only be
Matthew Woehlke wrote:
What about dropping hierarchical mirroring altogether? Why hasn't
someone developed a distributed (i.e. bittorrent-like) system for mass
mirroring? :-)
Already discussed[1][2] on the fedora-test-list.
[1]
On Tue, 2009-06-02 at 21:30 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
but if we get RC with the final name transferred to the
mirrors ahead of time then they can be updated relative quickly as well,
as only a few bit change.
We don't do this as it tends to lead to leaks, and confusion as to
whether the
On Tue, 2009-06-02 at 21:12 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
It might have helped to find the problem earlier -- I for example got
the impression that a lot of people had problems with the storage
rewrite and thus aborted their tests with Alpha or Beta.
An earlier freeze would have just
Jesse Keating wrote:
An earlier freeze would have just frozen the work unfinished. The
rewrite was a massive undertaking and we knew it was going to take
longer than the release cycle to finish. Freezing earlier wouldn't have
helped.
Then it should have been done in a work branch and
Matthew Woehlke wrote:
It's too bad fedora-test-list doesn't seem to be on gmane (or isn't
named obviously; gmane.org is being too slow for me to ask about the
mail address).
gmane.linux.redhat.fedora.testers
Kevin Kofler
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
On Wed, Jun 03, 2009 at 01:08:15AM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
It IMHO shows a big and more and more pressing problem in Fedora:
Packagers and leadership are not working towards the same direction.
The best solution for that is to change the leadership. :-) So don't vote
On Wed, Jun 03, 2009 at 01:10:14AM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Jesse Keating wrote:
An earlier freeze would have just frozen the work unfinished. The
rewrite was a massive undertaking and we knew it was going to take
longer than the release cycle to finish. Freezing earlier wouldn't have
We're announcing a Fedora Activity day coming up very very soon
(apologies for the short notice). This activity day is for maintainers,
QA, and release engineering folks to meet and discuss ongoing issues
with the Fedora Development Cycle and to create a proposal on how to fix
many of the issues.
On Fri, 2009-05-29 at 16:43 -0500, Adam Miller wrote:
On the wiki page is says that the Budget will be used for certain
attendees Flights, Hotel, Transportation to/from
airport/hotel/office/food I was just curious how that list of
attendees who's bill will be taken care of is/was decided upon?
On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 3:57 PM, Jesse Keating jkeat...@redhat.com wrote:
We're announcing a Fedora Activity day coming up very very soon
(apologies for the short notice). This activity day is for maintainers,
QA, and release engineering folks to meet and discuss ongoing issues
with the
31 matches
Mail list logo
