On Mon, May 03, 2010 at 02:00:59PM -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
On Mon, 2010-05-03 at 18:45 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
here will
ALWAYS be a need for a way to fasttrack regression fixes!
The proposals I've seen include a way to fasttrack. That is you get the
required karma between the
On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 12:51, Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com wrote:
Secondly, a simple linear scale doesn't reflect the complexity of
testing packages. I've had people downvote my packages because of FAQ
issues or user error or long-standing bugs in some other package that
we can't or
Am Montag, den 03.05.2010, 22:37 -0400 schrieb Orcan Ogetbil:
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 10:26 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Orcan Ogetbil said:
The statistic talks. It doesn't only talk. It yells. Ignoring this
test statistic in favor of the large pool of imaginary users, who
2010/5/4 Thomas Spura toms...@fedoraproject.org:
Am Montag, den 03.05.2010, 22:37 -0400 schrieb Orcan Ogetbil:
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 10:26 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Orcan Ogetbil said:
The statistic talks. It doesn't only talk. It yells. Ignoring this
test statistic in
Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
You must all realize that the ratio of bureaucracy/process burden and
quality of maintainers/packagers go hand in hand. The better the
maintainers/packagers/components are less bureaucracy/process burden is
needed. The worse it gets more bureaucracy/process burden
Jesse Keating wrote:
In many cases these do apply. I participate in cases such as this
nearly every day, and it's working. We're testing fixes, rejecting bad
ones, and getting the right builds into stable. The system is working,
but as we all know, no system is perfect. However perfect is
On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 3:24 PM, Rudolf Kastl che...@gmail.com wrote:
2010/5/4 Thomas Spura toms...@fedoraproject.org:
Am Montag, den 03.05.2010, 22:37 -0400 schrieb Orcan Ogetbil:
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 10:26 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Orcan Ogetbil said:
Sorry if i answer that
Thomas Janssen wrote:
Maybe i'm wrong and nothing is decided, but why don't we do something
then and get the data we need to decide the*right* direction in the
first place?
Because the important people of Fedora have deemed users to be
sub-standard humans. Only contributors (ie packagers)
Kevin Kofler wrote:
I am saying that SOME updates can be pushed with less or even no testing.
This does NOT mean that testing should not be used in most cases. It just
means that it should be the maintainer's discretion whether to use it or
not. The maintainer knows best how to handle his/her
Peter Hutterer wrote:
- I didn't vote in the fedoraforums poll because I trust FESCo to make
sane decisions without me having to randomly trawl forums to make sure I
can influence their decisions. So far that worked out for me. YMMV.
(Also, I didn't really notice the poll until the matching
On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 4:58 PM, Michael Cronenworth m...@cchtml.com wrote:
Thomas Janssen wrote:
Maybe i'm wrong and nothing is decided, but why don't we do something
then and get the data we need to decide the*right* direction in the
first place?
Because the important people of Fedora have
On 05/04/2010 09:50 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
You must all realize that the ratio of bureaucracy/process burden and
quality of maintainers/packagers go hand in hand. The better the
maintainers/packagers/components are less bureaucracy/process burden is
needed. The
On Tue, 2010-05-04 at 17:05 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Of course the poll was just a sample. Many people who are for adventurous
updates also didn't vote in that poll. E.g. I didn't. And I'm definitely for
what that poll called adventurous updates, though I don't see the
adventure in
On 05/03/2010 12:51 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Jesse Keating wrote:
On Mon, 2010-05-03 at 14:01 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
[1] And I appreciate that I made a mistake with hal-storage in this
cycle that caused inconvenience for people maintaining other spins, so
I'm not going to claim any
On Tue, 4 May 2010 11:51:11 +0100, Richard wrote:
There are also technical problems: You can't fit much text in the
Bodhi text box, and it can't be formatted except as a single
paragraph, and when you do add a comment to help someone it doesn't
seem to be seen by the original downvoter.
On Tue, 2010-05-04 at 10:00 -0500, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
The recent upswing in
policies and requirements is clouding Fedora's vision.
Which vision is that? The one where we should produce a generally
usable stable operating system every 6 months, one that users can
confidently use
On 05/04/2010 01:50 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
You must all realize that the ratio of bureaucracy/process burden and
quality of maintainers/packagers go hand in hand. The better the
maintainers/packagers/components are less bureaucracy/process burden is
needed. The
On 05/04/2010 05:55 PM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 05/04/2010 01:50 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
You must all realize that the ratio of bureaucracy/process burden and
quality of maintainers/packagers go hand in hand. The better the
maintainers/packagers/components
Jesse Keating wrote:
So this is kind of funny. You'd rather see testing become/less/
rigorous as the age of a release grows, and you want the most rigorous
testing done in rawhide. That's quite the opposite of what many of us
are trying to work toward, that is as the release moves from
Peter Jones wrote:
I'm sorry you don't like it, but you've had ample occasion to come up with
a better idea, and you have roundly refused to make any attempt at doing
so.
I'm sorry you don't like my plate of Merde Provençale, but you've had ample
occation to come up with a better recipe for
Do what thou wilt
shall be the whole of the Law.
On 5/4/10, Thomas Janssen thom...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 3:24 PM, Rudolf Kastl che...@gmail.com wrote:
2010/5/4 Thomas Spura toms...@fedoraproject.org:
Am Montag, den 03.05.2010, 22:37 -0400 schrieb Orcan Ogetbil:
On
On Tue, 2010-05-04 at 19:40 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
There are changes
which don't need testing, for example if a patch was dropped because we
thought it wasn't needed anymore, and it turns out the patch is still
needed, readding the patch needs no testing whatsoever because the patch has
Michael Cronenworth wrote:
Fedora security updates are regularly given no testing and are pushed
directly to stable. Perhaps you should classify your updates with a
severity of security.
That doesn't work because security updates require security team approval
(another silly policy which was
On Tue, 2010-05-04 at 12:04 -0500, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
Jesse Keating wrote:
So this is kind of funny. You'd rather see testing become/less/
rigorous as the age of a release grows, and you want the most rigorous
testing done in rawhide. That's quite the opposite of what many of us
On Tue, 2010-05-04 at 09:07 -0800, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 8:45 AM, Jesse Keating jkeat...@redhat.com wrote:
So I'd love to have multi-level policy, but in my opinion it should get
harder and harder to push an update as the release gets older, not
easier.
In general
On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 11:09 AM, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote:
Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
They aren't voted in. The range voting method does not vote people in
or out.. it determines who the majority of people are most likely to
'live' with. Basically it tries to remove the
On Tue, 2010-05-04 at 19:25 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Jesse Keating wrote:
Bad data is worse than no data.
I disagree. As bad as the data is, it can't be worse than claiming users
want, or worse, need, conservative updates without any evidence whatsoever
as has been done!
Wrong. There
Michael Cronenworth wrote:
It's common sense that older releases should be receiving more testing,
but here in reality it is the opposite. If I am wrong, please prove it.
Indeed, that's the fact we have to deal with, and IMHO the solution is to
push the same changes to all releases wherever
On 05/04/2010 06:04 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Peter Jones wrote:
Wait just a second - you're arguing that requiring testing doesn't work
because nobody tested the KDE spin within 8 days. You might want to
rethink this position.
Why? I don't see the contradiction. If nobody tests
Jesse Keating wrote:
This involved doing another build of the package, which could involve
changes in the buildroot and anomalies in the build process. Ask DaveJ
some time about what happened to his kernel builds when the build host
did a clock adjustment during the build. Shit happens, and
On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 9:50 AM, Jesse Keating jkeat...@redhat.com wrote:
If the breakage was more of a functional break and not a dep break,
that's where automated testing comes in, and we grow the automated
functional testing of updates so that if an update comes along we can
detect the
On 05/04/2010 01:40 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Peter Jones wrote:
I'm sorry you don't like it, but you've had ample occasion to come up with
a better idea, and you have roundly refused to make any attempt at doing
so.
I'm sorry you don't like my plate of Merde Provençale, but you've had ample
On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 2:14 PM, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote:
Some risks are so low that they're basically negligible. If the 2 options
are keeping an existing regression (which missed testing) in updates for a
few more days or risking the off chance that there MAY be another
On Tue, 04 May 2010 20:04:45 +0200
Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote:
Peter Jones wrote:
Wait just a second - you're arguing that requiring testing doesn't
work because nobody tested the KDE spin within 8 days. You might
want to rethink this position.
Why? I don't see the
Jesse Keating wrote:
If/when karma is required for an update to go out, or a timeout in
-testing, we will see an uptick in karma.
You keep claiming that. You have no evidence whatsoever for that, and it
doesn't seem plausible to me at all. Users only care about having the issue
fixed for
Jesse Keating wrote:
The solution to shit went out and broke my stuff isn't to make it
easier to put shit out, it's to make it harder to put broken shit out
in the first place.
Sure, that's a nice theory, but in practice, no matter how much testing you
require, there will ALWAYS be
On 05/04/2010 02:00 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
Wrong. There was data, on this very list, of users who desired more
conservative updates. There was also evidence on IRC of more users who
felt the same. I'd say there is the same quality of data
It's an interesting commentary on history to note
On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 11:10 AM, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote:
Jesse Keating wrote:
That's another problem with the poll. Adventurous means different
things to different people, so you can't assume that everybody is
responding to the same thing.
Adventurous has quite an
Bernd Stramm wrote:
I would like to pick the packages that I'm adventurous with. Currently
that's not very easy, either an adventurousness level is enabled in the
repos or it isn't. That means my package manager gives me a flood of
updates that I don't want. It would be nice to be able to
This thread is now closed. We've received repeated complaints about the
redundancy of it.
No further posts to this thread will be allowed.
Thank You,
Seth Vidal
Fedora Hall Monitor
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Hall_Monitor_Policy
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 11:14 AM, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote:
Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
Any one of those can invalidate the mathematical tests you say to run
as they require random pools, controls on populations polled, and
non-leading questions. People keep telling you this
Sir Gallantmon (ニール・ゴンパ) wrote:
Though, there are some instances where the prevailing opinion should be
ignored, when there is no solid evidence to back it up, e.g. Mono and the
like.
Indeed, I also think defending freedom is important (and it was part of my
campaign). But I've also been
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 1:04 AM, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote:
Sir Gallantmon (ニール・ゴンパ) wrote:
Though, there are some instances where the prevailing opinion should be
ignored, when there is no solid evidence to back it up, e.g. Mono and the
like.
Indeed, I also think
On Monday 03 May 2010 02:20:51 Kevin Kofler wrote:
Hi,
You will have noticed by now that my FESCo term is about to expire, that
the nomination period for FESCo just closed and that my name does not show
up on the list of candidates. No, this is not an accident or negligence,
the decision
2010/5/3 Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at:
Hi,
You will have noticed by now that my FESCo term is about to expire, that the
nomination period for FESCo just closed and that my name does not show up on
the
list of candidates. No, this is not an accident or negligence, the decision
not
Hi Kevin,
On 3 May 2010 01:20, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote:
You will have noticed by now that my FESCo term is about to expire, that the
nomination period for FESCo just closed and that my name does not show up on
the
list of candidates. No, this is not an accident or
Therefore, I will stay in office until the end of my term, but I will not be
available for reelection. I would like to thank the people who voted for me
last
year for their support and apologize to those who would have liked to vote for
me this time for not giving them this opportunity. If
Kevin, one way you might help for this election is add some questions to
the question that you think are important for voters to know about the
candidate.
So far only Paul and I have added questions, and I really think the
community needs to be more involved here.
As a reminder it's at:
On Sun, May 02, 2010 at 07:02:23PM -0700, Henrique Junior wrote:
Unfortunately, what I have seen over time is that Fedora is changing to
something that worries me and that is getting less fun to contribute. I
remember the time when I liked to say that fedora was the voice of the
Sir Gallantmon (ニール・ゴンパ) wrote:
Wait, I thought libvdpau had a VA-API backend?
AFAIK, no, there's only the opposite (a VDPAU backend for VA-API).
And VA-API also has no implementation in Free drivers other than a proof of
concept for the intel driver which:
* only supports MPEG 2, no MPEG 4,
*
Kevin Kofler wrote:
I do not wish to stand for such a committee anymore
Kevin, thank you for your attempts and for raising attention
on the difficulties you have faced.
If some of the time you save by not doing meetings will be
spent on additional excellent technical contributions of yours,
Matthew Garrett wrote:
The stable packages work is an extension of this. Even if we, as
maintainers, have plenty of fun, that's pretty easily wiped out if even
a small proportion of our users have to spend time fixing a system that
a stable update has broken. And without users who enjoy using
On Mon, May 03, 2010 at 04:34:13PM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
You make it look as if I was out to break people's systems
Actually, I didn't intend to say anything about you. My point was that
any increased bureaucracy has not been generated with the intention to
reduce the amount of fun that
Matthew Garrett wrote:
My point was that
any increased bureaucracy has not been generated with the intention to
reduce the amount of fun that developers have.
Let me jump in just to say that I'm not a developer/packager, but it
was my intention to become a contributor for Fedora.
What scared
On Mon, 2010-05-03 at 02:20 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
But if you want to see the kind of change to FESCo I'd like to see,
it'll take a faction of at least 5 people to make it happen.
Surely this is the point: if there are not sufficient candidates with a
particular point of view, that's hardly
I'm sorry you are unhappy.
I can only speak for myself here, but:
- I don't distrust our maintainers. I very much value the work they do
and without them we would have no Fedora. However, I also want to
help them do the right thing for our users (who I also would like to
see happy). I'm
On Mon, 2010-05-03 at 14:01 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
[1] And I appreciate that I made a mistake with hal-storage in this
cycle that caused inconvenience for people maintaining other spins, so
I'm not going to claim any kind of perfection in this area
Which just adds reason to why we are
Matthew Garrett wrote:
If updates cause regressions in functionality then that indicates that
our update testing process failed. The answer to that is to fix the
update testing process, not bypass it.
Your assumption there is that it is possible for a testing process to catch
ALL regressions.
Jesse Keating wrote:
On Mon, 2010-05-03 at 14:01 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
[1] And I appreciate that I made a mistake with hal-storage in this
cycle that caused inconvenience for people maintaining other spins, so
I'm not going to claim any kind of perfection in this area
Which just
On Mon, May 03, 2010 at 02:20:51AM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
[...]
Kevin, I was rooting for you, and I particularly agree with you on the
issues of trusting maintainers and devolving power down to packaging
groups and SIGs. It was very disheartening also to see so many votes
going N-to-1.
Alex Hudson wrote:
I think it's a bit disingenuous to talk about prevailing opinion of the
mailing list otherwise; to me a lot of the discussion looks an awful lot
like a vocal minority
I think it's quite cheap to write off the mailing list consensus as a vocal
minority with no evidence for
Once upon a time, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at said:
Matthew Garrett wrote:
snip
Can we PLEASE not rehash all of this again?
Thanks a lot Kevin; you showed a lot of class trying to stir up the same
arguments that you stirred up before. Maybe the reason you lost votes
is that a lot of
Kevin Fenzi wrote:
- I don't distrust our maintainers. I very much value the work they do
and without them we would have no Fedora. However, I also want to
help them do the right thing for our users (who I also would like to
see happy). I'm open to ideas on how to reduce 'red tape' for
On Mon, May 03, 2010 at 07:34:28PM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Why should we not call the GNOME spin, and the GNOME desktop in general, by
its name? GNOME is just A desktop, it's NOT the desktop.
It's the desktop with the most development and integration work
performed in the distribution,
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 8:00 PM, Chris Adams cmad...@hiwaay.net wrote:
Once upon a time, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at said:
Matthew Garrett wrote:
snip
Can we PLEASE not rehash all of this again?
Generally agreed.
Maybe the reason you lost votes is that a lot of people just don't
On Mon, 2010-05-03 at 19:34 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Alex Hudson wrote:
I think it's a bit disingenuous to talk about prevailing opinion of the
mailing list otherwise; to me a lot of the discussion looks an awful lot
like a vocal minority
I think it's quite cheap to write off the
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 8:08 PM, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org wrote:
On Mon, May 03, 2010 at 07:34:28PM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Why should we not call the GNOME spin, and the GNOME desktop in general, by
its name? GNOME is just A desktop, it's NOT the desktop.
It's the desktop with
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 3:07 AM, Alex Hudson fed...@alexhudson.com wrote:
I think it's a bit disingenuous to talk about prevailing opinion of the
mailing list otherwise; to me a lot of the discussion looks an awful lot
like a vocal minority,
Be careful about meeting subjective opinion with
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 10:00 AM, Chris Adams cmad...@hiwaay.net wrote:
Thanks a lot Kevin; you showed a lot of class trying to stir up the same
arguments that you stirred up before. Maybe the reason you lost votes
is that a lot of people just don't agree with you; pouting about that
won't
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 2:02 PM, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote:
Kevin Fenzi wrote:
- I read this list every day, and am very mindful of feedback from
developers. Any communication media is good, IMHO. My mailbox is also
always open. I think many become discouraged with the
On Sun, May 2, 2010 at 6:20 PM, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote:
.
- The prevailing opinion of the electorate of Fedora contributors keeps
getting ignored. Feedback on the Fedora devel mailing list is never seen as
in any way binding, it's often dismissed as noise or trolling.
On Mon, 2010-05-03 at 18:45 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
here will
ALWAYS be a need for a way to fasttrack regression fixes!
The proposals I've seen include a way to fasttrack. That is you get the
required karma between the time the update was submitted to bodhi, and
the time a bodhi admin
On Mon, 2010-05-03 at 18:51 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Except karma requirements (which were in force due to the critical path
process) did NOT prevent this particular regression, nor would a 1 week
minimum in testing requirement have prevented it (the update spent 8 days
in testing).
Jesse Keating wrote:
The proposals I've seen include a way to fasttrack. That is you get the
required karma between the time the update was submitted to bodhi, and
the time a bodhi admin starts the push. In such cases your update would
go directly to stable. How is that not a fast track?
On Mon, 2010-05-03 at 23:49 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Jesse Keating wrote:
The proposals I've seen include a way to fasttrack. That is you get the
required karma between the time the update was submitted to bodhi, and
the time a bodhi admin starts the push. In such cases your update
Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
As I have pointed out in both public and private emails to you
[snip]
Why are you telling all this stuff to me? I'm ALREADY complaining about our
processes being undemocratic. The points you make are very real. But I don't
agree with you that the solution has to be
On 5/4/2010 12:57 AM, Jesse Keating wrote:
Testing takes time, lets give up? Seriously? Pushes happen about once
every 24 hours, do you really say it'll take longer than 24 hours to get
a couple people to test the issue and confirm that your fix does indeed
fix the issue, and doesn't seem to
On Tue, 2010-05-04 at 01:27 +0300, shmuel siegel wrote:
At the risk of putting words into Kevin's mouth, I think that you just
made his point. I'd be very surprised if Kevin couldn't get x number of
people to say yes to a fix that he considered urgent. This might confirm
that the fix had
On Tue, 2010-05-04 at 00:01 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
In some cases, the people to represent are even our users, e.g. they asked
for adventurous updates, so why does the Board decide on a vision for
conservative updates? Are people that set on their personal preference that
they can't see
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 4:01 PM, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote:
Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
As I have pointed out in both public and private emails to you
[snip]
Why are you telling all this stuff to me? I'm ALREADY complaining about our
processes being undemocratic. The points
2010/5/4 Stephen John Smoogen smo...@gmail.com:
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 4:01 PM, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote:
Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
As I have pointed out in both public and private emails to you
[snip]
Why are you telling all this stuff to me? I'm ALREADY complaining about
On Tue, May 04, 2010 at 00:01:24 +0200,
Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote:
Why are you telling all this stuff to me? I'm ALREADY complaining about our
processes being undemocratic. The points you make are very real. But I don't
agree with you that the solution has to be some
Jesse Keating wrote:
Please stop banding about the forum poll as if it were some sort of
scientific measure with meaningful results one could use as a basis for
decision making.
It's the best data we have.
It was none of that. All it gave us was info we already had. Some users
would like
On 05/03/2010 10:30 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
The point here is that Kevin isn't perfect. As such, he can make
mistakes, just like all of us. By asking for a couple karma nods from
different people, we increase the chance of catching some of those
mistakes. Since the delay exists anyway, it
On Tue, 2010-05-04 at 01:58 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Jesse Keating wrote:
Please stop banding about the forum poll as if it were some sort of
scientific measure with meaningful results one could use as a basis for
decision making.
It's the best data we have.
Bad data is worse than no
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 10:01 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
On Tue, 2010-05-04 at 01:58 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Jesse Keating wrote:
The poll told us an approximate proportion, which is so far from 50-50
(72.13%) that we clearly have a statistically significant majority, also
considering the
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 5:58 PM, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote:
Jesse Keating wrote:
Please stop banding about the forum poll as if it were some sort of
scientific measure with meaningful results one could use as a basis for
decision making.
It's the best data we have.
And the
Once upon a time, Orcan Ogetbil oget.fed...@gmail.com said:
The statistic talks. It doesn't only talk. It yells. Ignoring this
test statistic in favor of the large pool of imaginary users, who
supposedly think in the complete other direction, is not only
non-scientific, stupid., but also
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 10:26 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Orcan Ogetbil said:
The statistic talks. It doesn't only talk. It yells. Ignoring this
test statistic in favor of the large pool of imaginary users, who
supposedly think in the complete other direction, is not only
On Mon, 2010-05-03 at 22:37 -0400, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 10:26 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Orcan Ogetbil said:
The statistic talks. It doesn't only talk. It yells. Ignoring this
test statistic in favor of the large pool of imaginary users, who
supposedly
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 10:45 PM, Dave Airlie wrote:
On Mon, 2010-05-03 at 22:37 -0400, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 10:26 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Orcan Ogetbil said:
The statistic talks. It doesn't only talk. It yells. Ignoring this
test statistic in favor
On 05/03/2010 11:12 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
On Mon, 2010-05-03 at 18:51 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Except karma requirements (which were in force due to the critical path
process) did NOT prevent this particular regression, nor would a 1 week
minimum in testing requirement have prevented it
On Tue, 2010-05-04 at 05:01 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
You are presuming a bug
* affects many people
* is reproducable by many people
* has user visible impacts
* users are volunteering to provide feedback
These presumptions are all wrong and do not apply.
In many cases these do
On Tue, 2010-05-04 at 05:01 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 05/03/2010 11:12 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
On Mon, 2010-05-03 at 18:51 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Except karma requirements (which were in force due to the critical path
process) did NOT prevent this particular regression, nor
On 05/03/2010 10:01 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
Of course the sample is biased. It's a sample of people who frequent
the forums, that's a self selecting group of people, by no means a
worthwhile representation of the Fedora user base as a whole.
FYI - Not true - I joined the forum for the
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 9:13 PM, Mail Llists li...@sapience.com wrote:
On 05/03/2010 10:01 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
Of course the sample is biased. It's a sample of people who frequent
the forums, that's a self selecting group of people, by no means a
worthwhile representation of the Fedora
On Mon, May 03, 2010 at 10:16:48PM -0400, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 10:01 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
On Tue, 2010-05-04 at 01:58 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Jesse Keating wrote:
The poll told us an approximate proportion, which is so far from 50-50
(72.13%) that we clearly
Bernd Stramm said the following on 05/03/2010 07:13 PM Pacific Time:
On Mon, 3 May 2010 22:04:11 -0400
Orcan Ogetbiloget.fed...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 8:22 PM, Bernd Stramm wrote:
On Tue, 04 May 2010 01:58:34 +0200
Kevin Kofler wrote:
The poll told us an approximate
On 05/04/2010 05:09 AM, Dave Airlie wrote:
So it its none of these why do you want to fast track it into stable?
The fact nobody has reported a bug into Fedora's bugtracking system
doesn't mean a package is not bugged or doesn't suffer from defects.
The prototypical situations I am facing with
On Tue, May 04, 2010 at 12:36:25AM -0400, Matt McCutchen wrote:
On Tue, 2010-05-04 at 14:20 +1000, Peter Hutterer wrote:
I resent being called an imaginary user. Being imaginary would seriously
screw with my weekend plans.
So tell us whether you take the stance on updates that is imputed
1 - 100 of 103 matches
Mail list logo
