Re: F24 Beta status

On Wednesday, April 27, 2016 5:42:58 PM CDT Matthew Miller wrote: > On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 11:26:38PM +0200, Jan Kurik wrote: > > What is wrong with the schedule ? We have agreed to have mass-rebuild > > in each schedule and in case the mass-rebuild will not be needed, we > > will just skip it.

Re: F24 Beta status

On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 10:59 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Wed, 2016-04-27 at 11:32 -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 09:13:36 -0700, >> Adam Williamson wrote: >> > >> > So please expect the RC to arrive in the

Re: F24 Beta status

On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 11:26:38PM +0200, Jan Kurik wrote: > What is wrong with the schedule ? We have agreed to have mass-rebuild > in each schedule and in case the mass-rebuild will not be needed, we > will just skip it. Or are you pointing to something else ? As I understand Dennis, he is

Re: F24 Beta status

On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 10:06 PM, Dennis Gilmore wrote: > On Wednesday, April 27, 2016 2:28:36 PM CDT Matthew Miller wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 11:11:24AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: >> > (only built for F23 for some reason) - please do try it out and give >> > feedback.

Re: F24 Beta status

On Wed, 2016-04-27 at 09:13 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > Hey folks! Just to keep everyone in the loop, here's what's going on > with F24 Beta: > > we have two outstanding accepted blockers that need fixing before we > can spin a 'release candidate': > >

Re: F24 Beta status

On Wednesday, April 27, 2016 2:28:36 PM CDT Matthew Miller wrote: > On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 11:11:24AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > > (only built for F23 for some reason) - please do try it out and give > > feedback. But we can't do an F24 RC with this issue outstanding, > > really. We could

Re: F24 Beta status

On Wed, 2016-04-27 at 20:35 +0200, Kalev Lember wrote: > On 04/27/2016 08:11 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > > On Wed, 2016-04-27 at 09:13 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > > > Hey folks! Just to keep everyone in the loop, here's what's going on > > > with F24 Beta: > > > > > > we have two outstanding

Re: F24 Beta status

On 04/27/2016 08:11 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: On Wed, 2016-04-27 at 09:13 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: Hey folks! Just to keep everyone in the loop, here's what's going on with F24 Beta: we have two outstanding accepted blockers that need fixing before we can spin a 'release candidate':

Re: F24 Beta status

On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 11:11:24AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > (only built for F23 for some reason) - please do try it out and give > feedback. But we can't do an F24 RC with this issue outstanding, > really. We could try an extremely dodgy 'it's not really a blocker' > fudge or some kind of

Re: F24 Beta status

On Wed, 2016-04-27 at 09:13 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > Hey folks! Just to keep everyone in the loop, here's what's going on > with F24 Beta: > > we have two outstanding accepted blockers that need fixing before we > can spin a 'release candidate': > >

Re: F24 Beta status

On Wed, 2016-04-27 at 11:32 -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote: > On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 09:13:36 -0700, > Adam Williamson wrote: > > > > So please expect the RC to arrive in the next several hours, if all > > goes well, and be ready to test :) It won't be super

Re: F24 Beta status

On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 09:13:36 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: So please expect the RC to arrive in the next several hours, if all goes well, and be ready to test :) It won't be super different from the current nightly, but we'll at least need to do sanity testing

F24 Beta status

Hey folks! Just to keep everyone in the loop, here's what's going on with F24 Beta: we have two outstanding accepted blockers that need fixing before we can spin a 'release candidate': https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1321330 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1259865 a