On Sat, 2012-10-06 at 01:12 +0200, Till Maas wrote:
> I believe this was only the case with earlier updates. At least I did
> not notice the problem with the current update and there was no negative
> karma to the F17 update during 91 days saying otherwise.
I was the the one who gave bad karma to
On Fri, 2012-10-05 at 14:57 -0800, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 2:32 PM, Till Maas wrote:
25 minutes for an 'unresponsive maintainer' to respond, that has to be
some sort of project record. =)
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | iden
On Fri, 5 Oct 2012 15:20:16 -0800
Jef Spaleta wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 3:06 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > Ugh. Shall I unpush those from going stable then until this is
> > figured?
> >
> > Sorry about that...
>
> I am a firm believer in the Pottery Barn rule. You break it you buy
> it. If
On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 3:06 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> Ugh. Shall I unpush those from going stable then until this is figured?
>
> Sorry about that...
I am a firm believer in the Pottery Barn rule. You break it you buy it.
If you feel this is important enough of a security fix to break ui
then pus
On Fri, Oct 05, 2012 at 02:57:02PM -0800, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 2:32 PM, Till Maas wrote:
> > I noticed that the revelation security update was not pushed to stable.
> > It is now 91 days old, which makes me suspect that Jef is somehow
> > hindered to take care of it:
>
> H
Ugh. Shall I unpush those from going stable then until this is figured?
Sorry about that...
kevin
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 2:57 PM, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
> Here's the problem with that update it breaks existing revelation
> setups for people because of the gconf schema change.
I'll add that the additional wrinkle is that once you move to the new
version, it updates the encryption on your data
On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 2:32 PM, Till Maas wrote:
> I noticed that the revelation security update was not pushed to stable.
> It is now 91 days old, which makes me suspect that Jef is somehow
> hindered to take care of it:
Here's the problem with that update it breaks existing revelation
setup
On Sat, 6 Oct 2012 00:32:50 +0200
Till Maas wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I noticed that the revelation security update was not pushed to
> stable. It is now 91 days old, which makes me suspect that Jef is
> somehow hindered to take care of it:
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-10269/reve
Hi,
I noticed that the revelation security update was not pushed to stable.
It is now 91 days old, which makes me suspect that Jef is somehow
hindered to take care of it:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-10269/revelation-0.4.14-1.fc17
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDO
10 matches
Mail list logo
