On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 18:20:35 +0200
Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote:
Luke Macken wrote:
- The submitter of an update can no longer effect the karma (Till
Maas)
Uh, last I checked, FESCo had agreed that this should NOT be enforced
by the software because it is legitimate for the
On Thu, 2012-08-09 at 17:53 -0400, Luke Macken wrote:
- Re-organized the links on the front page, and link to the new Update
Feedback Guidelines
Thanks a lot for that!
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 1:53 AM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, 2010-08-18 at 01:37 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Adam Williamson wrote:
As several people have pointed out, there's a fundamental inconsistency
in your position - you can't simultaneously claim that lots of
Adam Williamson wrote:
To me, that reads more like a problem with the update submission system
than anything. I'd like to see far fewer restrictions on it (just like
I'd like for koji), so you could edit the existing update to add your
packages. This same issue exists even without feedback
Thomas Janssen wrote:
I'm part of the KDE SIG. I will apply today for proventester to become
the KDE proventester.
Actually, Rex Dieter already started the application process, so you'll
probably become a KDE proventester, not the KDE proventester. ;-)
But the more proventesters we have, the
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 9:51 PM, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote:
Thomas Janssen wrote:
I'm part of the KDE SIG. I will apply today for proventester to become
the KDE proventester.
Actually, Rex Dieter already started the application process, so you'll
probably become a KDE
Thomas Janssen wrote:
Another BTW, if you think you have to write something, a simple
'thank you for stepping up' would have been enough.
Well, yes, thank you for stepping up, your help is very much appreciated! I
didn't mean to offend you!
(And thanks to Rex Dieter as well, by the way.)
Ryan Rix (r...@n.rix.si) said:
available (sometimes in front of it)... Yet even now, we can't keep up with
what (some of) our users want: the latest KDE, on KDE's release day, whether
it's a major release, or a point release. Yes, not every one of our users is
this way, but many are, and
On Saturday, August 14, 2010 07:57:27 pm Martin Sourada wrote:
On Sat, 2010-08-14 at 19:05 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Martin Sourada wrote:
I still remember the epic fail of having KDE 4.0 in stable fedora
* I still think the KDE 4.0.3 we shipped in F9 wasn't that bad. We fixed
all
Bill Nottingham wrote:
You can build some faster-moving feature packages on top of a stable base
for those that want it.
In theory you can. In practice that turns out to work rather poorly. It's
the model several other distros are using; their feature updates
repositories are always underused
Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
And we did it - now we can slow down - we'd like to go with one major
update for a Fedora release.
Maybe you do. :-) I don't. I believe that all Fedora releases deserve the
same kind of update support until their respective EOL.
Kevin Kofler
--
devel mailing
Tomas Mraz wrote:
But note, that nothing in the Fedora update policy changes would prevent
from the same push during the _development_ phase either. So you might
be dissatisfied with the KDE-4.0 in F9 but this can happen with other
packages or package stacks in new Fedora releases regardless
On Tue, 2010-08-17 at 13:29 +0200, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
Most problems in updates are task for Auto QA, not a very strict policy (I
would say it's more strict than RHEL updates :))). And I'm not completely
This is clearly hyperbole. Really, we've pointed out multiple times that
all you need
Adam Williamson wrote:
As several people have pointed out, there's a fundamental inconsistency
in your position - you can't simultaneously claim that lots of people
are frothing at the mouth for new releases of KDE, but it's really hard
to find anyone to test the updates. If there's so many
On Wed, 2010-08-18 at 01:37 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Adam Williamson wrote:
As several people have pointed out, there's a fundamental inconsistency
in your position - you can't simultaneously claim that lots of people
are frothing at the mouth for new releases of KDE, but it's really hard
Adam Williamson wrote:
Admittedly, yeah, +1ing an update you did yourself is bad form.
Actually, FESCo said that Bodhi should not count such self-voted karma at
all. If it still does, that's a feature which is likely to go away very
soon. :-(
Then advise the KDE team to submit updates with a
On Wed, 2010-08-18 at 03:17 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
That particular update was not submitted by us, but by the guy who did all
the Python 2.7 rebuilds.
The annoying thing is, I have a newer KDevelop build (an upgrade to an
upstream point release) I want to push to testing, but as long
On Sat, 2010-08-14 at 19:57 +0200, Martin Sourada wrote:
On Sat, 2010-08-14 at 19:05 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
* Version updates, the very ones you complain about, brought that 4.0 up to
4.1 and later 4.2. I used F9 on my main machine from F8's EOL up to F9's
EOL. F9 with KDE 4.2 (and
Toshio Kuratomi (a.bad...@gmail.com) said:
So I've kept my voice out of this... and hopefully, now that you know that
it's not just hte KDE SIG, I can go back to doing so again.
... how does that help?
You've mentioned that you don't like 'this change' ... which part of it are
you referring
On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 13:09, List Troll mrlisttr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 8:05 PM, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote:
Martin Sourada wrote:
I still remember the epic fail of having KDE 4.0 in stable fedora
* I still think the KDE 4.0.3 we shipped in F9 wasn't that
David Malcolm wrote:
I think that a distinction can be made between core packages that many
different components depend upon versus leaf packages that do their
own thing and no other component relies on. I do think we should be
conservative when updating core components in released versions
Adam Williamson wrote:
On Fri, 2010-08-13 at 17:54 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
in the past due to regressions which are already fixed in the current
edited version. (Yes, update groups will be edited instead of obsoleted
if we
Please stop mixing minor bugs in the process in with high-flown
On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 12:12:47 -0400, seth wrote:
On Fri, 2010-08-13 at 18:07 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Al Dunsmuir wrote:
You are assuming that it is somehow a good idea to push release Fn, in
spite of no (or negative) testing.
Yes I am! If I build the EXACT SAME specfile for all
Michael Schwendt wrote:
+1, +10, +1000 … happens with Fedora and also with Fedora EPEL.
I've always warned about mass-pushing updates to multiple dists,
and I'm glad I'm not the only one.
EPEL is an entirely different matter, since:
* there are literally YEARS between the RHEL releases and
*
W dniu 14.08.2010 11:08, Kevin Kofler pisze:
Adam Williamson wrote:
On Fri, 2010-08-13 at 17:54 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
in the past due to regressions which are already fixed in the current
edited version. (Yes, update groups will be edited instead of obsoleted
if we
Please stop mixing
W dniu 14.08.2010 00:12, Kevin Fenzi pisze:
On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 23:17:39 +0200
Sven Lankes s...@lank.es wrote:
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 07:21:50PM +0200, Martin Sourada wrote:
I wonder why I get the impression that the only ones who strongly
oppose this change are you folks from KDE SIG...
On Sat, 14 Aug 2010 11:33:02 +0200, Kevin wrote:
I've always warned about mass-pushing updates to multiple dists,
and I'm glad I'm not the only one.
EPEL is an entirely different matter, since:
* there are literally YEARS between the RHEL releases and
* RHEL has a very conservative
On Sat, 2010-08-14 at 10:32 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Martin Sourada wrote:
There are also bazillion distributions out there who are on the bleeding
edge.
But none that have the current stuff without blatant breakage as updates to
the stable releases, and ship the exciting but
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 07:07:44PM -0400, Luke Macken wrote:
I just pushed out a fix that should allow you to edit updates with your
local development instance.
Thank you very much, it works. Patches for the autokarma javascript will
soon be attached to bodhi's trac. With these, there is only
Martin Sourada wrote:
Seeing your mail, you more or less agree with this. So why exactly are
you against the policy explicitly requiring either positive karma or
some minimal time in testing (setting aside some current shrotcommings
of the implementation like resetting the timer on bug update
On 08/14/2010 07:17 AM, Till Maas wrote:
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 07:07:44PM -0400, Luke Macken wrote:
I just pushed out a fix that should allow you to edit updates with your
local development instance.
Thank you very much, it works. Patches for the autokarma javascript will
soon be attached
On Sat, 2010-08-14 at 19:14 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Martin Sourada wrote:
Seeing your mail, you more or less agree with this. So why exactly are
you against the policy explicitly requiring either positive karma or
some minimal time in testing (setting aside some current shrotcommings
On Sat, 2010-08-14 at 19:05 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Martin Sourada wrote:
I still remember the epic fail of having KDE 4.0 in stable fedora
* I still think the KDE 4.0.3 we shipped in F9 wasn't that bad. We fixed all
the showstoppers before F9 was released, and were also quick to ship
New packages can break existing systems. Leak ram, eat filesystems, leak
personal data, leak root, dos a system, etc...
--
Sent from my Android phone. Please excuse my brevity, lack of trimming, and top
posting.
Martin Sourada martin.sour...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, 2010-08-14 at 19:14 +0200,
On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 8:05 PM, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote:
Martin Sourada wrote:
I still remember the epic fail of having KDE 4.0 in stable fedora
* I still think the KDE 4.0.3 we shipped in F9 wasn't that bad. We fixed all
the showstoppers before F9 was released, and were
On Sat, 2010-08-14 at 19:44 +0200, Martin Sourada wrote:
The only thing I don't understand completely (but can accept without
complaining nevertheless) is why this applies to *new* packages as well
-- they didn't existed in repos before and anything is better than
nothing...
Same objection
On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 4:08 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Sat, 2010-08-14 at 19:44 +0200, Martin Sourada wrote:
The only thing I don't understand completely (but can accept without
complaining nevertheless) is why this applies to *new* packages as well
-- they didn't existed in repos before
On Fri, 2010-08-13 at 22:59 +0200, Julian Sikorski wrote:
Is the karma getting reset upon an edit?
I don't have an answer to the question, but FYI, there is an open ticket
about it:
https://fedorahosted.org/bodhi/ticket/388
--
Matt
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
On Fri, 2010-08-13 at 07:56 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 08/13/2010 07:11 AM, Matt McCutchen wrote:
Let's try that again. Fedora has no obligation to you; nothing entitles
you (or anyone for that matter) to push updates or even to post to this
list.
... and people are free to have
On Friday, August 13, 2010 03:10:46 am Kevin Kofler wrote:
I wrote:
But FWIW, when it comes to KDE in particular, the whole thing is moot or
soon to be moot anyway because parts of KDE are now being redefined as
critical path, resulting in even more annoying update policies, even
though
On Friday, August 13, 2010 03:26:11 am Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at said:
IMHO, FESCo should be abolished, Fedora needs to be ruled by the SIGs!
Why are you here?
To work? Not to play politics games? Kevin is really one of the top Fedora
On Friday, August 13, 2010 01:27:18 am Kevin Kofler wrote:
Luke Macken wrote:
Fixed in
https://fedorahosted.org/bodhi/changeset/97b1a9d1f9ceecaaa2128837cc5bbd7f
8e495f36
That fix is really unhelpful and makes it a PITA to edit updates! In the
past, KDE SIG has often edited in some
On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 17:57:28 -0400, Luke wrote:
A new version of bodhi has just hit production. This release contains
a number of bugfixes and improvements, along with some important process
changes.
- Minimum time-in-testing requirements
- Every day bodhi will look for
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 05:57:28PM -0400, Luke Macken wrote:
- Show 7 days worth of entries in our RSS feeds, as opposed to 20
entries (https://fedorahosted.org/bodhi/ticket/339)
This is nice, I forgot to add myself to the CC list, so I did not notice
this before.
- Only verify the
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 3:27 AM, Luke Macken wrote:
A new version of bodhi has just hit production. This release contains
a number of bugfixes and improvements, along with some important process
changes.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates
I expect more fine tuning will be needed
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
I expect more fine tuning will be needed for these changes but thanks
for all your work on this.
Indeed! Thanks Luke. Bodhi became much more useful with this update even
if there are a few nay-sayers.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
Then we have to push broken updates, policy says so and it's ok, so let's
do it
:(
A policy requiring us to push something broken is broken. I'm not going to
push broken shit.
Kevin Kofler
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
On Friday, August 13, 2010 05:09:17 pm Kevin Kofler wrote:
Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
Then we have to push broken updates, policy says so and it's ok, so let's
do it
:(
A policy requiring us to push something broken is broken. I'm not going to
push broken shit.
Just irony but it feels
Hello Kevin,
On Thursday, August 12, 2010, 8:04:12 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
The F-(x) package will have higher EVR than the F-(x+1) one. This
will break the upgrade path. Is there any measures to prevent this?
No. In fact FESCo specifically refused to consider this as an
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 01:27:18AM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
fix breaks that. Plus, edits can also be only to the description or bug
references, Bodhi doesn't allow me to edit those without editing the whole
update.
Bodhi also allows you to edit the stable karma value and unless it is
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
I think, for packages that are modified during the testing period,
this N should be calculated from the day the last push was made to
testing.
This would very unhelpful.
Yes, this was my initial intention. However, looking at the code a bit
closer, your scenario
On 08/13/2010 09:08 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
It would hurt all sides - it would hurt Fedora, the new distribution, our
work in Red Hat, users and so on. And I don't understand why we can't work
under one roof - to make Fedora the best OS. Maybe more autonomy for SIGs
Till Maas wrote:
Bodhi also allows you to edit the stable karma value and unless it is
implemented differently (or has changed again), you can just use a
stable karma value of 1 and ask someone except the update submitter to
provide the +1 karma and the update can be pushed to stable. This is
Al Dunsmuir wrote:
You are assuming that it is somehow a good idea to push release Fn, in
spite of no (or negative) testing.
Yes I am! If I build the EXACT SAME specfile for all F*, then I don't see
why testing on ANY F* isn't sufficient. Please don't bring the same old
argument that
On Fri, 2010-08-13 at 18:07 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Al Dunsmuir wrote:
You are assuming that it is somehow a good idea to push release Fn, in
spite of no (or negative) testing.
Yes I am! If I build the EXACT SAME specfile for all F*, then I don't see
why testing on ANY F* isn't
This is where Kevin blames the scenario on not having the same sqlite on all of
the Fedora releases, which is another evil plot hatched by the devils of
FESCo
seth vidal skvi...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Fri, 2010-08-13 at 18:07 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Al Dunsmuir wrote:
You are
On 08/13/2010 07:20 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 17:57:28 -0400, Luke wrote:
A new version of bodhi has just hit production. This release contains
a number of bugfixes and improvements, along with some important process
changes.
- Minimum time-in-testing
On 08/13/2010 11:29 AM, Till Maas wrote:
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 01:27:18AM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
fix breaks that. Plus, edits can also be only to the description or bug
references, Bodhi doesn't allow me to edit those without editing the whole
update.
Bodhi also allows you to edit the
On 08/13/2010 01:57 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 08/13/2010 01:23 AM, Luke Macken wrote:
On 08/12/2010 07:12 PM, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 5:57 PM, Luke Macken wrote:
- Minimum time-in-testing requirements
- Every day bodhi will look for updates that
Nathanael D. Noblet wrote:
However you don't want to let other people decide anything. You want
patches FF and kernel in so you get to do it, you want to push updates
without any testing required so you get to. To hell with whatever anyone
else wants, and when there is an organization put in
On 08/12/2010 07:47 PM, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 5:57 PM, Luke Macken wrote:
- Minimum time-in-testing requirements
- When someone tries to push an update to stable, bodhi will
look to see if it has the appropriate karma, or if it has
On 08/13/2010 05:10 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
I think, for packages that are modified during the testing period,
this N should be calculated from the day the last push was made to
testing.
This would very unhelpful.
Yes, this was my initial intention. However, looking
On 08/13/2010 06:45 PM, Luke Macken wrote:
On 08/13/2010 01:57 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 08/13/2010 01:23 AM, Luke Macken wrote:
On 08/12/2010 07:12 PM, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 5:57 PM, Luke Macken wrote:
- Minimum time-in-testing requirements
Luke Macken wrote:
The only case for update starvation that I can think of is if you keep
adding/removing builds from an update before it reaches a week in
testing or the karma thresholds.
For any large update group, that's just always going to happen. There's
always another important fix you
Jesse Keating wrote:
This is where Kevin blames the scenario on not having the same sqlite on
all of the Fedora releases, which is another evil plot hatched by the
devils of FESCo
Right. If F12 has a buggy SQLite, then that SQLite should be fixed!
Kevin Kofler
--
devel mailing
On Fri, 2010-08-13 at 17:17 +0200, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
On Friday, August 13, 2010 05:09:17 pm Kevin Kofler wrote:
Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
Then we have to push broken updates, policy says so and it's ok, so let's
do it
:(
A policy requiring us to push something broken is
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 05:54:30PM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Till Maas wrote:
Bodhi also allows you to edit the stable karma value and unless it is
implemented differently (or has changed again), you can just use a
stable karma value of 1 and ask someone except the update submitter to
seth vidal wrote:
On f12, however, the version of sqlite that f12 had handles an error
condition differently than on f13 and f14. It meant that instead of
raise an exception and letting us move along that it raised an exception
and then exited.
Jesse already anticipated my reply there. :-)
On Friday, August 13, 2010, 1:11:49 PM, Kevin wrote:
Jesse Keating wrote:
This is where Kevin blames the scenario on not having the same sqlite on
all of the Fedora releases, which is another evil plot hatched by the
devils of FESCo
Right. If F12 has a buggy SQLite, then that SQLite
On Fri, 2010-08-13 at 13:30 -0400, Al Dunsmuir wrote:
On Friday, August 13, 2010, 1:11:49 PM, Kevin wrote:
Jesse Keating wrote:
This is where Kevin blames the scenario on not having the same sqlite on
all of the Fedora releases, which is another evil plot hatched by the
devils of
Once upon a time, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at said:
Jesse Keating wrote:
This is where Kevin blames the scenario on not having the same sqlite on
all of the Fedora releases, which is another evil plot hatched by the
devils of FESCo
Right. If F12 has a buggy SQLite, then that
Once upon a time, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at said:
The people who voted them in were a small minority
As were the people that voted you in. Does that invalidate your FESCo
standing as well?
I tried many things, even running for FESCo and getting voted in. As you can
see, it didn't
On Fri, 2010-08-13 at 12:43 -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at said:
I tried many things, even running for FESCo and getting voted in. As you
can
see, it didn't achieve anything either.
Is it impossible for you to accept the fact that not
Martin Sourada wrote:
I wonder why I get the impression that the only ones who strongly oppose
this change are you folks from KDE SIG... Are you doing things
differently from anyone else in fedora - the rest of us are either more
or less neutral or positive towards this new change?
If we
seth vidal wrote:
and that's what the testing helped with. The bug was noticed. It was
patched upstream to accomodate the versions of sqlite that act
differently and we moved along.
So, in fact, testing worked exactly as we wanted it to.
But if SQLite had consistently been tracking upstream
Doing so would have changed behavior and broken software that relied upon that
behavior. Sounds like a great way to run the distro
Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote:
seth vidal wrote:
and that's what the testing helped with. The bug was noticed. It was
patched upstream to
On Fri, 2010-08-13 at 20:14 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Martin Sourada wrote:
I wonder why I get the impression that the only ones who strongly oppose
this change are you folks from KDE SIG... Are you doing things
differently from anyone else in fedora - the rest of us are either more
or
On 08/13/2010 01:23 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
Doing so would have changed behavior and broken software that relied upon
that behavior. Sounds like a great way to run the distro
With that attitude, how would we ever change gcc versions in a stable
release? eyeroll ;)
headdesk
-J
Chris Adams wrote:
What if it isn't a bug, but just different behavior?
Do you really think it's acceptable for a library to terminate the whole
application when an error happens??? There's a reason rpmlint complains
loudly about shared-library-calls-exit.
Kevin Kofler
--
devel
Martin Sourada wrote:
I wonder why I get the impression that the only ones who strongly oppose
this change are you folks from KDE SIG... Are you doing things
differently from anyone else in fedora - the rest of us are either more
or less neutral or positive towards this new change?
Oh, and
Till Maas wrote:
The same people that provided the -1 karma can provide a +1 karma. And
you only need have of these people to change their karma vote to get
back to zero karma. This should also not be a major problem, unless
there are people providing unjustified -1 karma to cause problems.
Once upon a time, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at said:
If we really are the only ones true to Fedora's original principles
As I recall, upstream, upstream, upstream was one of those principles
that you are demanding others now break.
--
Chris Adams cmad...@hiwaay.net
Systems and Network
Jesse Keating wrote:
Doing so would have changed behavior and broken software that relied upon
that behavior. Sounds like a great way to run the distro
Software relying on an error in a library to terminate the whole
application, as opposed to raising an interceptable exception? Is there
Bug or not, changing the behavior of a library is not something to be done
without coordination and consideration and cooperation. Our releases are not
rawhide, stuff can't be rammed in whenever upstream bumps a number.
We are off on a tangent here, the point is that our releases have
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 08:20:04PM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Chris Adams wrote:
What if it isn't a bug, but just different behavior?
Do you really think it's acceptable for a library to terminate the whole
application when an error happens??? There's a reason rpmlint complains
loudly
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 07:21:50PM +0200, Martin Sourada wrote:
On Fri, 2010-08-13 at 17:17 +0200, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
On Friday, August 13, 2010 05:09:17 pm Kevin Kofler wrote:
Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
Then we have to push broken updates, policy says so and it's ok, so
let's
On Fri, 2010-08-13 at 20:17 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Martin Sourada wrote:
I wonder why I get the impression that the only ones who strongly oppose
this change are you folks from KDE SIG... Are you doing things
differently from anyone else in fedora - the rest of us are either more
or
On Fri, 2010-08-13 at 20:14 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Martin Sourada wrote:
I wonder why I get the impression that the only ones who strongly oppose
this change are you folks from KDE SIG... Are you doing things
differently from anyone else in fedora - the rest of us are either more
or
W dniu 13.08.2010 01:12, Orcan Ogetbil pisze:
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 5:57 PM, Luke Macken wrote:
- Minimum time-in-testing requirements
- Every day bodhi will look for updates that have been
in testing for N days (fedora: N=7, epel: N=14), and will
add
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 07:21:50PM +0200, Martin Sourada wrote:
I wonder why I get the impression that the only ones who strongly
oppose this change are you folks from KDE SIG... Are you doing things
differently from anyone else in fedora - the rest of us are either
more or less neutral or
On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 15:39:59 -0400
Toshio Kuratomi a.bad...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm negative towards this change and not part of the KDE SIG but don't
really like to clutter up the mailing lists with a bunch of negative
energy. And I don't like the way it makes me feel about Fedora to
On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 23:17:39 +0200
Sven Lankes s...@lank.es wrote:
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 07:21:50PM +0200, Martin Sourada wrote:
I wonder why I get the impression that the only ones who strongly
oppose this change are you folks from KDE SIG... Are you doing
things differently from
On Fri, 2010-08-13 at 16:12 -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 23:17:39 +0200
Sven Lankes s...@lank.es wrote:
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 07:21:50PM +0200, Martin Sourada wrote:
I wonder why I get the impression that the only ones who strongly
oppose this change are you folks
On 08/13/2010 10:16 AM, Till Maas wrote:
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 05:57:28PM -0400, Luke Macken wrote:
- Show 7 days worth of entries in our RSS feeds, as opposed to 20
entries (https://fedorahosted.org/bodhi/ticket/339)
This is nice, I forgot to add myself to the CC list, so I did not
On Fri, 2010-08-13 at 17:54 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Till Maas wrote:
Bodhi also allows you to edit the stable karma value and unless it is
implemented differently (or has changed again), you can just use a
stable karma value of 1 and ask someone except the update submitter to
provide
On Fri 13 August 2010 11:36:09 Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at said:
If we really are the only ones true to Fedora's original principles
As I recall, upstream, upstream, upstream was one of those principles
that you are demanding others now break.
Luke Macken wrote:
- Package update acceptance criteria compliance
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_update_acceptance_criteria
- Disable direct-to-stable pushes
(https://fedorahosted.org/bodhi/ticket/434)
- Minimum time-in-testing requirements
-
On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 00:31:58 +0200
Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote:
I think that this is really going to break our workflow!
I think it's going to help our workflow and provide our users with more
stable updates. Time will tell.
For example, for the Fedora 14 under development, we
Kevin Fenzi wrote:
Well, this has nothing to do with that. We are currently only pushing
to stable those updates that are needed to fix Alpha release blockers
in F14. So, it wouldn't matter here.
It will matter after the Alpha release when urgent dependency fixes will be
withheld for 1 week
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 5:57 PM, Luke Macken wrote:
- Minimum time-in-testing requirements
- Every day bodhi will look for updates that have been
in testing for N days (fedora: N=7, epel: N=14), and will
add a comment notifying the maintainer that the
1 - 100 of 115 matches
Mail list logo
