Greetings yo all
With regrets I must say I feel we have grown so fat we are about to
collapse under our own weight but instead of properly start dealing with
that within the project, people chose to ignore that fact but instead
chose to force some future vision of RHEL 8 upon the project
On 05/20/2014 01:21 PM, Michał Piotrowski wrote:
Hi,
Thank you for all your hard work on systemd integration!
There are about 100 - 120 components left to migrate for the sys v
migrate alone and total about 1000+ man hours to complete the
integration properly so file a new feature for it
On 05/20/2014 02:04 PM, Mike Ruckman wrote:
I'm sorry to hear it, I was looking forward to getting a beer with you
at some conference in the future. Good luck in whatever you go into
next!
Highly unlikely that would have ever happened since I had planned on
never attesting a Fedora event
On 05/20/2014 03:34 PM, Richard Ryniker wrote:
Thank you for years of work to improve Fedora. All Fedora users benefit
to some extent from your efforts.
as WG's slowy turn into tiny little empires fighting amongst themselves
for components directions and maintenance...
Fedora (and linux in
On 05/02/2014 04:29 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Fri, 2014-05-02 at 10:39 +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 05/01/2014 12:36 PM, Ankur Sinha wrote:
Hi,
Here's the draft for the Workstation product[1]. It's completely based
on Adam's draft for the Server product. A lot more work needs
On 05/01/2014 12:36 PM, Ankur Sinha wrote:
Hi,
Here's the draft for the Workstation product[1]. It's completely based
on Adam's draft for the Server product. A lot more work needs to be
done. I haven't discussed this with the workstation SIG yet.
[1]
On 04/26/2014 02:04 AM, Mike Ruckman wrote:
On Sat, 26 Apr 2014 00:10:22 +
Jóhann B. Guðmundsson johan...@gmail.com wrote:
On 04/25/2014 10:59 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Fri, 2014-04-25 at 22:35 +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 04/25/2014 09:43 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
Well
On 04/25/2014 03:52 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 11:10:17 -0400,
Mickey binary...@comcast.net wrote:
Gentleman!!! when replying to a email LEAVE the contents of the
orignal poster intact so the next person that reads the email can
read what the poster had to say.
On 04/25/2014 09:43 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
we at least need to get the requisite new test
cases and matrix templates (or whatever) drawn up, and decide on whose
responsibility all the testing we ultimately decide to do will be.
Just keep those test matrix and test cases along with their
On 04/25/2014 10:59 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Fri, 2014-04-25 at 22:35 +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 04/25/2014 09:43 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
we at least need to get the requisite new test
cases and matrix templates (or whatever) drawn up, and decide on whose
responsibility
On 04/15/2014 04:03 AM, Mike Ruckman wrote:
We're each going to be working with the WG's to help them draft their
test plans for their products - in an attempt (AIUI) to keep consistent
test plans throughout the whole Fedora.next ecosystem. Though I
understand how that could read as we're just
On 04/15/2014 12:02 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
* adamw to draft a test plan for Server product
* roshi to draft a test plan for Cloud product
* FranciscoD to draft a test plan for Workstation product
Any particular reason why we are drafting test plans for the products?
JBG
--
test mailing
On 04/07/2014 06:03 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
2. Rawhide validation testing
Before this continues we need to rewrite the entire release criteria,
limiting it to Anaconda and BaseWG followed by test cases and release
validation in that regard.
Once that is completed we should introduce
On 04/04/2014 04:05 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
Does this look OK to everyone? Thanks!
Is not better to have this separated/sorted by milestones (
alpha/beta/final) as well as aligned with Mike's test maps?
And this probably should also be tagged with what's applicable to each
workgroup so
On 04/01/2014 04:27 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
If anyone has any ideas to improve/refine this effort, do reply!
Has this been cordinated with devs so found issues from this process
will be looked at ( they themselves might just ignore reported bugs if
they are working themselves on other
On 02/19/2014 08:03 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
AGREED: the new mattdm's proposal for EOL bug procedure is approved -
this ishttps://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1198 , the new proposal
that was approved is
https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1198#comment:67 . It's not a huge
change from
On 01/22/2014 03:32 AM, Kashyap Chamarthy wrote:
You seem to be trolling. I cannot see the humour in your post nor the
intentions behind your wink.
That's not my problem if you don't see the humor in my post and yes I
did read Adam's email.
And do me a favor never ever respond to my emails
On 01/22/2014 12:35 PM, Ankur Sinha wrote:
focus away from Adam's initial thought.
As I said we should also spend time on improving the QA community now
since this really is the time for that ( and for a long time our
opportunity to do so ) so dont hesitate to share with us your ideas and
On 01/21/2014 02:30 PM, Frank Murphy wrote:
Had a choice between here or kernel@
Apologies if it somewhere,
more grey hair less grey matter.
Does test@ fedora give a heads up,
when cpus are no longer supported.
eg kernel-3-15* will no longer support
AMD AM2, Intel whatever
Mister Google
On 01/14/2014 04:03 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
I'm working on the assumption that there'll still be a base product for
us to validate whatever else happens, and it's better to keep working on
our processes for that than to just sit around on our hands.
--
On that note just add it we can
On 01/07/2014 10:15 PM, Mike Ruckman wrote:
On Fri, 3 Jan 2014 22:05:24 -0700
Mike Ruckman ro...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
Hey all! After some talking with danofsatx and looking through the
wiki, we thought the Join page could use a little de-wallification.
Dan and I have created an alternate
On 01/06/2014 02:52 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
Hi Fedora test and QA folks! I posted a (kind of long) message on Fedora devel
with some thoughts about the direction of the project in the next year. A
lot of it directly affects -- and is affected by, of course -- Fedora QA,
and the whole third
On 01/06/2014 06:48 PM, Tim Flink wrote:
I had been thinking about doing this, but John brought it up during the
qa meeting today.
As we're done with both the holidays (read: vacation for many folks)
and F20, it's probably a good time to talk about where we are with the
various qa development
On 01/06/2014 07:20 PM, Chris A. Roberts wrote:
Hi Everyone,
I am looking to help out the QA team with testing. Handsome Pirate has
helped me learn the testing process with easy karma and has sponsored
me in the group. I am looking forward to helping out and getting to
know everyone. my irc
On 01/06/2014 05:42 PM, Tim Flink wrote:
I want to focus on getting the base
automation working well so that we can go to the WGs with here's our
automation system and this is how you write tasks for it. we'll help
with getting tasks run but you all need to maintain the ones specific
to you
On 01/06/2014 09:16 PM, Tim Flink wrote:
On Mon, 06 Jan 2014 20:20:45 +
Jóhann B. Guðmundsson johan...@gmail.com wrote:
On 01/06/2014 05:42 PM, Tim Flink wrote:
I want to focus on getting the base
automation working well so that we can go to the WGs with here's
our automation system
On 01/06/2014 09:39 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
Of course, anything else we can do to free up not just Tim and Kamil,
but anyone else with the necessary knowledge and skills, to contribute
to tooling work is a good thing.
Which brings up an interesting question how much did they manage to
On 01/06/2014 10:09 PM, Tim Flink wrote:
I don't have a specific percentage but from my POV, not as much as I
was hoping but still within my expectations.
We ended up being thrown a couple of unexpected curveballs which chewed
up a decent amount of time but I don't think we're any more than a
On 12/30/2013 08:20 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
3.https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Roshi/QA/Join
We rewrite rethink several section from this.
JBG
--
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
On fös 20.des 2013 19:24, Adam Williamson wrote:
I've stuck a meeting agenda item for the group membership stuff in for
Monday, we can chat about it there...maybe you could draft some specific
changes to the current group description texts?
The only issues that I have been bit concern with is
On mið 18.des 2013 15:52, Alexander Todorov wrote:
* Are there any volunteers to join me in planning and coordinating
this project? We need to somehow prioritize which packages need
inspection and working on, count the available test cases, report bugs
if missing, produce patches, etc. It
On þri 17.des 2013 04:26, John Dulaney wrote:
Ahoy,
So, I am with Adam on this one (I'm not a mod?). I've been +1 for this
idea for quite some time now.
Johann, I've been around for a long time, even longer than Adam, and I don't
remember the original purpose for the QA group; I do vaguely
On þri 17.des 2013 23:05, John Dulaney wrote:
What do you mean, mutilate it to serv it's corporate purpose? Are you
stating that since I now work for Red Hat, I'm evil?
No I'm stating that because of the history and that history should not
be allowed to be forgotten and you are not suddenly
On mán 16.des 2013 20:32, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Mon, 2013-12-16 at 12:23 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
Right now me, James Laska, Will Woods and Jesse Keating are the admins
of the QA group. This is obviously a bit silly. I'll drop jlaska's,
wwoods' and jesses' admin roles, and make some
On mán 16.des 2013 21:00, Adam Williamson wrote:
Even though we don't really have a lot of use for the FAS group,
None what so ever.
Fedora
as a whole is set up such that 'being a member of a FAS group' is a bar
to entry for some things,
Not with us and never should be.
so it seems
On mán 16.des 2013 21:48, Dan Mossor wrote:
I may be misinterpreting, but what do you have against volunteers?
Especially since Fedora is a volunteer-driven project?
Dont fall into whatever game Adam is playing by reviving this group.
JBG
--
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To
On mán 16.des 2013 21:45, Mike Ruckman wrote:
For those of us who haven't been with QA for even a year yet, can you
give a brief too long; didn't read synopsis of your reasoning and
where it stems from? Without some form of background it's hard to infer
what your reasoning is.
You can look at
On mán 16.des 2013 22:08, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 22:06:44 +,
\Jóhann B. Guðmundsson\ johan...@gmail.com wrote:
Adam is right about what's wrong but as so often he's trying to fix
it in the wrong place...
Access to those reources are controlled by group
On mán 16.des 2013 22:10, Adam Williamson wrote:
I'm not playing any game...in fact, the thing that prompted me to
finally write this email was Dan asking on #fedora-qa if there was a FAS
group we could put him in so he'd have fedorapeople space!
The limit that group entirely with providing
On mán 16.des 2013 22:22, Adam Williamson wrote:
If you mean Then limit that group entirely with providing him and
others with that. - well, that's already what we'd be doing. The
proposal isn't to make the QA group required for anything at all in
relation to QA. The proposal is just to add all
On mán 16.des 2013 22:12, Adam Williamson wrote:
What, in your estimation, would be the right place? Instead of just
saying 'no', can you provide an alternative solution to the problem?
Solution to fix this lies not within in us ( QA ) the alternative
solution requires a real change in the
On lau 14.des 2013 00:54, Adam Williamson wrote:
That requires will on the part of the desktop SIGs, though. QA is not
going to be responsible for this. My position is either the desktop SIGs
fix their stuff, or we will have to change the criteria as I proposed,
because what other choice do we
On fös 13.des 2013 02:05, Adam Williamson wrote:
It was clear at the Go/No-Go meeting today that KDE SIG does not
consider this release criterion applicable/desired:
All applications that can be launched using the standard graphical
mechanism of a release-blocking desktop after a default
On fös 13.des 2013 06:30, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Fri, 2013-12-13 at 05:31 +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On fös 13.des 2013 02:05, Adam Williamson wrote:
It was clear at the Go/No-Go meeting today that KDE SIG does not
consider this release criterion applicable/desired:
All
On 12/11/2013 01:50 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
Received request to flush runtime journal from PID 1
With limited info it could be the kernel or it could simply be short on
space on /var ?
Follow http://freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/Debugging/ and see
if you get something more
On 12/06/2013 11:41 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
Hi, folks. I've been doing some polish testing on F20 in the last few
days, and thought it'd make sense to write up my tests as test cases.
Here's the first:
Thoughts, queries, corrections, improvements etc? Thanks!
As long as you dont start
On 12/06/2013 03:56 PM, Karel Volný wrote:
Hi,
Dne pátek, 6. prosince 2013 16:19:35 CEST, Clyde E. Kunkel napsal(a):
Is there a policy or other guidance on who is allowed to close
another persons bz? For example, can a person who is not a member of
the action developer or bugzappers group
On 11/26/2013 06:24 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
The Server Working Group is a team focused on the development of a
server-OS built from the Fedora Project. Recently, the chair held by
Jóhann B. Guðmundsson was vacated. At today's Working Group
meeting[1], we agreed that we would like
On 11/04/2013 10:37 AM, Alexander Todorov wrote:
На 1.11.2013 21:03, moshe nahmias написа:
I think that some of the problem is that you have to register to file a
bug. There is no reason to register if you just want the developer to
know
there is a bug and from then on no interaction unless
On 11/01/2013 10:03 AM, Alexander Todorov wrote:
Hi folks,
recently OpenSource.com published an article of mine explaining why
users should take the extra step to submit a bug:
http://opensource.com/business/13/10/user-guide-bugs-open-source-projects
It is based on real event, which
On 10/22/2013 07:33 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Tue, 2013-10-22 at 11:23 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Blocker_Bug_FAQ
Existing: When a bug causes a criterion not to be met in some but not all
cases, the teams involved in the release process will make a judgement
On 10/16/2013 02:14 AM, Andre Robatino wrote:
dlehman proposedhttps://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1019500 as a
Beta Blocker, andhttps://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1019502 as a
Final Blocker, but both are private, so they need to be fixed before the
meeting.
Great yet another
On 10/16/2013 11:59 AM, Richard Ryniker wrote:
Unnecessary private designation for a bug report might be due to
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1011916
which complains that a bug reporter has to decide about private status
before possibly sensitive information in the report can
On 10/16/2013 03:08 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
clone-of-a-private-RHEL-bug thing.
Which is the problem RHEL bugs should not be cloned to to Fedora but the
other way around since we are upstream for RHEL.
JBG
--
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
Greetings
If people get bored on traditional installation testing of Anaconda
there is an dnf preview in Anaconda which introduces among st other
things payload or parallel downloads of all packages which means it's
going to be faster for network installations ( unscientific measurements
On 10/11/2013 01:05 PM, Josef Skladanka wrote:
Hi,
first of all - thanks for the kind words!
I mailed the testday-owners during F19, I honestly forgot to promote it now (my
bad, I guess we could add it to some 'HOW TO' for testdays, if it exists).
The app still has it's limits (and I have
On 10/11/2013 02:03 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Fri, 2013-10-11 at 13:42 +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
Hmm when was it decided that we should write our own app to replace the
wiki instead of trying to (re)use something other distribution are using?
Such as?
Exactly as I thought
On 10/11/2013 03:49 PM, Samuel Sieb wrote:
Is it a language comprehension issue or do you just deliberately
misrepresent what people say to match what you want to believe? That
response was asking if you had any suggestions, not implying that no
research was done. I know you were here for
On 10/11/2013 04:47 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
Well, 'we' didn't, really. Josef just thought it would be a useful thing
to have, so he wrote it, and someone running a test day wound up using
it. There was no strategic meeting or grand conspiracy or plan or
something. This is how stuff happens in
On 10/09/2013 01:41 PM, Alexander Todorov wrote:
Join IRC #fedora-test-day on FreeNode if you get into trouble.
Report all bugs preferably at upstream bugzilla [3] or Red Hat
bugzilla [4].
Does this mean all apps will be latest greatest ?
My experience with GNOME upstream is that if you
On 10/07/2013 08:28 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
* viking-ice suggested pushing to have anaconda development cycle adjusted to
stabilize earlier in the cycle
As I suggested on the meeting I have started that discussion with the
Anaconda developers and the thread for that can be found here [¹]
On 10/01/2013 10:02 PM, Mike Ruckman wrote:
For anyone who might be interested, there are a couple test days
looking for volunteers to run them. Throughout the week of 2013-10-22
we have 4 test days scheduled for a 'Graphics Test Week,' but these
days currently don't have coordinators.
Those
On 09/25/2013 02:43 PM, Kamil Paral wrote:
Hi,
I'll try to organize a few people locally in Sofia to
participate in Fedora 20 test days, currently interested in
Virtualization Test Day and Gnome Test Day on Oct 8th and 10th.
looking at
On 09/24/2013 03:10 AM, Jonathan Kamens wrote:
On 09/23/2013 10:03 PM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 09/24/2013 01:45 AM, Michal Jaegermann wrote:
This absolutely does not scale from a POV of a user reporting bugs.
Well neither does it do so from developer standpoint that also has
On 09/24/2013 05:50 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
Exactly, users are reporting bugs against a product called Fedora,
not against another party's product called package.
In that sense it's a Fedora package maintainer's duty to arbitrate
processing bug reports and communicate them to appropriate
On 09/24/2013 06:45 AM, Dan Horák wrote:
we are missing a tool that would clone the Fedora bugs from bugzilla to
upstream bug trackers. I think the removal of the manual work needed to
copy all the information from bugzilla to upstream tracker would be
appreciated by the packagers. I have the
On 09/24/2013 05:24 AM, Frank Murphy wrote:
On Mon, 23 Sep 2013 21:49:23 +
Jóhann B. Guðmundsson johan...@gmail.com wrote:
Greetings you all
After bit of irc discussion there is a compelling reason to move
entirely away from Red Hat bugzilla as well as away from concept of
hosting our own
On 09/24/2013 09:17 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 09/24/2013 10:25 AM, Jan Wildeboer wrote:
That said, I regret having to tell you that your plan is dumb,
naive, and far from being workable.
That said, I regret having to tell you that insulting the OP instead
of pointing out relevant
On 09/24/2013 10:45 AM, Mateusz Marzantowicz wrote:
Great idea, but how would one know all that upstream bug tracker URLs
for all packages that are shipped with Fedora?
Is there any tag in RPM package spec file that could be used to provide
such information and are you planning to extend
On 09/24/2013 11:22 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
_Why_ are they in no communication with upstream?
?
Because there is no requirement for them doing so when they become
maintainers for a given package nor is it being ensured if package is
orphaned that the maintainer that takes it over is in
On 09/24/2013 11:45 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
There is no such rough split between package (co-)maintainers and
the QA community. I don't even know how you define the QA community.
Those that participate in QA community activity testing/reporting etc.
--
test mailing list
On 09/24/2013 12:19 PM, Jonathan Kamens wrote:
. In fact, there are four stakeholders: QA, packagers, upstream, and
users. What efforts are being made to solicit useful feedback from all
four groups?
?
There are 2 stake holders in this
1 QA Community ( which includes reporters ) 2 the
On 09/24/2013 12:30 PM, Frank Murphy wrote:
On Tue, 24 Sep 2013 12:28:18 +
Jóhann B. Guðmundsson johan...@gmail.com wrote:
On 09/24/2013 12:19 PM, Jonathan Kamens wrote:
. In fact, there are four stakeholders: QA, packagers, upstream,
and users. What efforts are being made to solicit
On 09/24/2013 12:41 PM, Frank Murphy wrote:
So, basically you want users to go find the bugzilla,
I can see how the will help keep the distro running,
unless you just want QA, and Packagers only using it.
For one, I won't be signing up to every site to track bugs,
if bz is broke, help fix it!
On 09/24/2013 12:50 PM, Frank Murphy wrote:
On Tue, 24 Sep 2013 12:44:02 +
Jóhann B. Guðmundsson johan...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not sure what that response is supposed to be adding to the
discussion since it's a well known fact the discomfort it brings to
reporters to have them go upstream
On 09/24/2013 01:00 PM, Jonathan Kamens wrote:
Oh, so now we're trotting out credentials to make our case
No I was just making the point that I have been the nr1 arguing against
what I'm proposing now for many years so I'm aware of all the
inconvenience it will bring reporters.
You can go
On 09/24/2013 03:48 PM, Michal Jaegermann wrote:
On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 09:46:51AM +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
So from my point of view we wont be gathering reports from novices
end users in 10 years time.
This is a plain self-fulfilling prophecy. If you will manage to kill
report
On 09/24/2013 06:42 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Tue, 24 Sep 2013 18:35:46 +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
Really...
Let's run a simple query against bugzilla for bugs in the status NEW (
as in not looked at )
NEW doesn't imply not looked at. And it doesn't imply no response either
On 09/24/2013 07:28 PM, Darryl L. Pierce wrote:
On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 06:35:46PM +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 09/24/2013 03:48 PM, Michal Jaegermann wrote:
On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 09:46:51AM +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
So from my point of view we wont be gathering reports
On 09/24/2013 07:33 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 09:55:40 +,
\Jóhann B. Guðmundsson\ johan...@gmail.com wrote:
The jury is not out on that infra has already stated that we wont be
having our own bug tracker due to lack of man power which means we
cannot implement
On 09/24/2013 07:17 PM, Jonathan Kamens wrote:
As Michael Schwendt has pointed out, NEW implies neither that the bug
hasn't been looked at nor that there has been no activity on it.
Russ Herrold is also correct: if bugs are not being looked at, then
that's not the fault of the bug-tracking
On 09/24/2013 09:14 PM, Jonathan Kamens wrote:
Jóhann,
I do not think you are participating in this discussion with your mind
open to the possibility that you may be wrong.
People have offered many reasons why they think what you are proposing
is a bad idea. You have failed to acknowledge
On 09/24/2013 09:21 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Jonathan Kamens j...@kamens.us said:
Rather, it feels to me like
you've already made up your mind and are just putting on a show of
listening to other people's opinions before going ahead and doing
what you wanted to do all along.
If
On 09/24/2013 10:07 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
We do modify accounts all the time.
(How do you think fedorabugs works?)
I needed to migrate all of my bugs to another account tied to one of my
email address then delete it ( old work account ) and that was not possible
JBG
--
test mailing list
On 09/24/2013 10:07 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
Again, if you want to be productive could you detail the exact pain
points you have and we can try and alleviate them with RH bugzilla
team.
Unlimited unhindered hacking access to bugzilla for one, an full
disclosure of the RH administrative policy
On 09/24/2013 10:07 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
which I would summarize as:
- You asked about us running our own bugzilla.
- We mentioned we have been thinking about this and pointed to the
above wiki page.
- We noted at this time that we aren't wanting to do so, but are happy
to hear more
Greetings you all
After bit of irc discussion there is a compelling reason to move
entirely away from Red Hat bugzilla as well as away from concept of
hosting our own.
Now it pretty much boils down to this.
1. Generic attitude of many maintainers is that reports either go to the
correct
On 09/23/2013 10:43 PM, nonamedotc wrote:
While I do think this is a good idea, I am a few immediate concerns on
which I would request a bit more information/guidance -
1. What if a bug is due to a specific combination libraries or builds
in Fedora and not necessarily an upstream issue?
On 09/23/2013 10:59 PM, Jan Wildeboer wrote:
How will you track blocker bugs?
Given that we are the ones filling them that's should not be an hard
issue to overcome.
How can we see a global view of all open bugs? Aggregate from X upstream bug
report systems? Which not all are Bugzilla?
On 09/23/2013 11:07 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Jan Wildeboer (jwild...@redhat.com) said:
How will you track blocker bugs?
How can we see a global view of all open bugs? Aggregate from X upstream bug
report systems? Which not all are Bugzilla?
How can we track critical bugs?
Additional
On 09/23/2013 11:55 PM, Felix Miata wrote:
What to do when someone discovers what is clearly a problem but
neither he nor anyone reading his report here or on devel list can
tell whether the bug is in kernel, driver, xorg, gnome/kde/xfce/etc.
or something else?
Well I'm pretty sure upstream
On 09/24/2013 01:45 AM, Michal Jaegermann wrote:
This absolutely does not scale from a POV of a user reporting bugs.
Well neither does it do so from developer standpoint that also has to
maintain downstream distribution bugzilla accounts.
Basically the amount of work and the effort are on
On 09/11/2013 04:47 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
Greetings.
I thought I would pass along a upcoming change to bugzilla and see if
anyone saw problems or issues with it before it lands.
The change is tracked in this bug:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=950315
Basically it will replace
On 08/20/2013 10:35 AM, Kamil Paral wrote:
On Fri, 2013-08-16 at 23:45 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
Following on my little series, we also need to adjust the Base and
Desktop matrices for ARM as primary arch, but the good news is the
changes are pretty simple.
As discussed at the QA meeting
On 07/30/2013 10:22 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
Proposing a new draft release validation test case:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Adamwill/Draft_QA_Testcase_desktop_terminal
this is a fairly simple test case that just checks that a terminal
application works in a desktop environment. It
On 07/31/2013 05:33 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Wed, 2013-07-31 at 17:28 +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 07/30/2013 10:22 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
Proposing a new draft release validation test case:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Adamwill/Draft_QA_Testcase_desktop_terminal
On 07/10/2013 12:32 PM, Karel Volný wrote:
Dne úterý, 9. července 2013 16:57:22 CEST, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson
napsal(a):
No need too, Bill will just close this WONTFIX and reach through the
screen and smack you on the back of your head or Václav will just
find you with something to throw at you
On 07/09/2013 10:41 AM, Karel Volný wrote:
Dne pondělí, 8. července 2013 14:03:00 CEST, Adam Pribyl napsal(a):
So to avoid the worst - the need to interrupt the power and risk the
damage to all other mounted file systems, I'd like to open a
discussion on enabling the sysrq in Fedora by
On 07/08/2013 12:03 PM, Adam Pribyl wrote:
I've hit very unpleasant trouble - my ext4 rootfs gots crazy and I had
a thousands of multiply claimed blocks files. This revealed to me
one systemd weakness - it depends so heavily on a files on a rootfs,
it can not, in case they are damaged, do its
On 07/08/2013 04:02 PM, Adam Pribyl wrote:
On Mon, 8 Jul 2013, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
No need to open a discussion. SysRq is disable for are a reason and
what you are propose allows anyone that sits at the keyboard to kill
all process,reboot without syncing or authorization and all
1 - 100 of 533 matches
Mail list logo
