Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
Now without any further testing the package can be pushed to stable,
which contradicts the purpose of this whole change in bodhi.
Sssh, why can't you keep quiet about this?!
I think, for packages that are modified during the testing period,
this N should be calculated
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 have been
in testing for N days (fedora: N=7, epel: N=14), and will
On 08/12/2010 07:15 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
Now without any further testing the package can be pushed to stable,
which contradicts the purpose of this whole change in bodhi.
Sssh, why can't you keep quiet about this?!
I think, for packages that are modified during the
Luke Macken wrote:
Fixed in
https://fedorahosted.org/bodhi/changeset/97b1a9d1f9ceecaaa2128837cc5bbd7f8e495f36
That fix is really unhelpful and makes it a PITA to edit updates! In the
past, KDE SIG has often edited in some trivial fixes into the final stable
push of a KDE grouped update which
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
been in testing for more than N days.
I
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 issue, they
say separate releases need separate testing and so they refuse
Luke Macken wrote:
Ok, so the problem here is that bodhi unpushes updates when you edit
*anything* in it. If it only unpushed an updated when you add/remove
builds from it, then this scenario would be sane.
There's still the We've been testing a new KDE release for 2-3 weeks, now
we need to
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 3:02 AM, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote:
Luke Macken wrote:
Ok, so the problem here is that bodhi unpushes updates when you edit
*anything* in it. If it only unpushed an updated when you add/remove
builds from it, then this scenario would be sane.
There's
List Troll wrote:
If you have been *testing* it for 2-3 weeks surely you have no problem
to find two testers to confirm the small fix?
This argument has been brought up all the time. The thing is, it takes time
to find people to +1 updates. It takes even longer if the people actually
test the
I wrote:
This argument has been brought up all the time. The thing is, it takes
time to find people to +1 updates. It takes even longer if the people
actually test the updates before +1ing them (as they're expected to). This
excessive and useless QA adds delays over delays.
But FWIW, when it
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 there was clear consensus in KDE SIG that such policies are
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? All you do is shout about how everything that is done
is done wrong, and how you wanted to do it different but were out-voted.
Why don't you go
Chris Adams wrote:
Why are you here? All you do is shout about how everything that is done
is done wrong, and how you wanted to do it different but were out-voted.
Why don't you go start your own distribution? If you are right, then
you should have no trouble getting a large group of
On Fri, 2010-08-13 at 03:33 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Chris Adams wrote:
Why are you here? All you do is shout about how everything that is done
is done wrong, and how you wanted to do it different but were out-voted.
Why don't you go start your own distribution? If you are right, then
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 have been
in testing for N days
101 - 115 of 115 matches
Mail list logo
