On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 02:41:25PM +0100, Phil Knirsch wrote:
On 11/06/2013 05:43 AM, Jon wrote:
Right, release cycle will definitely be a hot topic, and i'd like us to
Maybe too early, it's probably better to answer what do you want to
release before you choice the right release cycle :-)
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 6:31 PM, Jaroslav Reznik jrez...@redhat.com wrote:
And with that conflict - resources to backport stuff or do updates (that's
the reason why we have so many updates - no resources to backport fixes,
more hope that upstream fixed it and it's regression free :D).
Note that
- Original Message -
Howdy folks.
Looking forward to getting to work on base design. Regarding the voting
members I feel we have a great group. Everyone intersted (voting or not)
should participate in our discussions. My vote will certainly be influenced
by anyone in the community
On 11/04/2013 07:01 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 11/04/2013 11:07 AM, Phil Knirsch wrote:
Hi everyone.
A quick update from my side regarding the Base Design WG:
- My proposed committee was approved by FESCO last Wednesday. One
negative vote
On 11/06/2013 05:43 AM, Jon wrote:
On Nov 4, 2013 12:01 PM, Stephen Gallagher sgall...@redhat.com
mailto:sgall...@redhat.com wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 11/04/2013 11:07 AM, Phil Knirsch wrote:
Hi everyone.
A quick update from my side regarding the
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 8:41 AM, Phil Knirsch pknir...@redhat.com wrote:
On 11/06/2013 05:43 AM, Jon wrote:
Another item I'd like to consider for the initial discussion is the
release cycle for the base design. My feeling is that base is small
enough and simple enough to allow a more frequent
- Original Message -
One request i also already got was if we in the Base WG could take a look
at
containers/sandboxes for applications as well. Basically so that the
technology could be used by any derived product built on top of Base. And
as
there are currently multiple
On 11/06/2013 02:46 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 8:41 AM, Phil Knirsch pknir...@redhat.com wrote:
On 11/06/2013 05:43 AM, Jon wrote:
Another item I'd like to consider for the initial discussion is the
release cycle for the base design. My feeling is that base is small
enough
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 3:38 PM, Phil Knirsch pknir...@redhat.com wrote:
On 11/06/2013 02:46 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 8:41 AM, Phil Knirsch pknir...@redhat.com wrote:
On 11/06/2013 05:43 AM, Jon wrote:
Another item I'd like to consider for the initial discussion is the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 11/06/2013 09:57 AM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 15:38:10 +0100, Phil Knirsch
pknir...@redhat.com wrote:
But i do like the idea of well Overlap releases? Where most of
the release would stay stable in a sense of API/ABI and
On 11/06/2013 04:46 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 11/06/2013 09:57 AM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 15:38:10 +0100, Phil Knirsch
pknir...@redhat.com wrote:
But i do like the idea of well Overlap releases? Where most of
the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 11/06/2013 11:09 AM, Phil Knirsch wrote:
On 11/06/2013 04:46 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1
On 11/06/2013 09:57 AM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 15:38:10 +0100, Phil Knirsch
- Original Message -
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 11/06/2013 11:09 AM, Phil Knirsch wrote:
On 11/06/2013 04:46 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1
On 11/06/2013 09:57 AM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Wed, Nov 06, 2013
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 11/06/2013 12:31 PM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
- Original Message -
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1
On 11/06/2013 11:09 AM, Phil Knirsch wrote:
On 11/06/2013 04:46 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED
On Nov 4, 2013 12:01 PM, Stephen Gallagher sgall...@redhat.com wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 11/04/2013 11:07 AM, Phil Knirsch wrote:
Hi everyone.
A quick update from my side regarding the Base Design WG:
- My proposed committee was approved by FESCO last
Hi everyone.
A quick update from my side regarding the Base Design WG:
- My proposed committee was approved by FESCO last Wednesday. One
negative vote came from Stephen Gallagher that he would have very much
preferred to have Lennart instead of Harald or Josh on the committee.
- IRC
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 11/04/2013 11:07 AM, Phil Knirsch wrote:
Hi everyone.
A quick update from my side regarding the Base Design WG:
- My proposed committee was approved by FESCO last Wednesday. One
negative vote came from Stephen Gallagher that he would have
17 matches
Mail list logo
