Once upon a time, Hans de Goede said:
> I think the whole "stable update cycle" versus "semi-rolling update style" is
> too black and white. For core packages / major desktop packages clearly a
> "stable update cycle" is the right thing to do.
Well, but reading this thread, it obviously isn't "cl
Hi,
On 03/03/2010 10:30 PM, Doug Ledford wrote:
> On 03/03/2010 02:27 PM, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
>> Okay. This has gone on long enough. The signal is gone from the
>> following threads:
>
> The signal is not entirely gone, although it is getting weaker.
>
>> * FESCo wants to ban direct stable
On 03/03/2010 06:14 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Release_Lifecycle_Proposals
>
> Several people have made proposals which are listed here. I know of several
> others (for instance, jresnik's proposal for different F-Current and
> F-Current-1 update styles) and your
On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 04:44:55PM -0500, Doug Ledford wrote:
> On 03/03/2010 04:40 PM, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
> > On 03/03/2010 04:30 PM, Doug Ledford wrote:
> >> So while I agree that some of the posts where people are simply
> >> attacking other people need to stop, I can't agree that this t
On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 16:40 -0500, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
> On 03/03/2010 04:30 PM, Doug Ledford wrote:
> > So while I agree that some of the posts where people are simply
> > attacking other people need to stop, I can't agree that this thread has
> > reached a stage where it is advisable to st
On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 14:27 -0500, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
> Okay. This has gone on long enough. The signal is gone from the
> following threads:
>
> * FESCo wants to ban direct stable pushes in Bodhi (urgent call forfeedback)
> * Worthless updates
> * Refining the update queues/process
>
> Ac
On 03/03/2010 04:44 PM, Doug Ledford wrote:
> Well, I *did* make a barebones proposal towards the third option in the
> thread in question, and I intended to work some more on it (in a
> constructive manner). But, I can put it in a new thread if you like.
Please do so, it will hopefully focus the
On 03/03/2010 04:40 PM, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
> On 03/03/2010 04:30 PM, Doug Ledford wrote:
>> So while I agree that some of the posts where people are simply
>> attacking other people need to stop, I can't agree that this thread has
>> reached a stage where it is advisable to stop constructiv
On 03/03/2010 04:30 PM, Doug Ledford wrote:
> So while I agree that some of the posts where people are simply
> attacking other people need to stop, I can't agree that this thread has
> reached a stage where it is advisable to stop constructive discussions.
> I would argue that it's necessary to c
On Wed, 03 Mar 2010 22:39:44 +0100
nodata wrote:
> What is hall monitored?
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Hall_Monitor_Policy
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On 03/03/10 20:27, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
> Okay. This has gone on long enough. The signal is gone from the
> following threads:
>
> * FESCo wants to ban direct stable pushes in Bodhi (urgent call forfeedback)
> * Worthless updates
> * Refining the update queues/process
>
> Accordingly, I'm mar
On 03/03/2010 02:27 PM, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
> Okay. This has gone on long enough. The signal is gone from the
> following threads:
The signal is not entirely gone, although it is getting weaker.
> * FESCo wants to ban direct stable pushes in Bodhi (urgent call forfeedback)
> * Worthless up
Okay. This has gone on long enough. The signal is gone from the
following threads:
* FESCo wants to ban direct stable pushes in Bodhi (urgent call forfeedback)
* Worthless updates
* Refining the update queues/process
Accordingly, I'm marking those threads as Hall-Monitored. Please stop
posting in
13 matches
Mail list logo
