On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 23:52:24 +0100,
Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com wrote:
It takes days for updates to be distributed to mirrors. A week may be
nothing for that important power-user of app 'A', who would find a problem
as soon as he *would* try out a test-update.
Some mirrors.
On Mon, 8 Mar 2010, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 23:52:24 +0100,
Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com wrote:
It takes days for updates to be distributed to mirrors. A week may be
nothing for that important power-user of app 'A', who would find a problem
as soon as he
On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 17:30:14 -0600,
Mike McGrath mmcgr...@redhat.com wrote:
On Mon, 8 Mar 2010, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 23:52:24 +0100,
Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com wrote:
It takes days for updates to be distributed to mirrors. A week may be
On Mon, 8 Mar 2010, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 17:30:14 -0600,
Mike McGrath mmcgr...@redhat.com wrote:
On Mon, 8 Mar 2010, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 23:52:24 +0100,
Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com wrote:
It takes days for
On Wed, 03 Mar 2010 14:06:33 -0800, Adam wrote:
as we've explained several times,
It won't get more correct by simply repeating it over and over again.
most packages that go to
updates-testing for a few days *are* being tested, even if they get no
apparent Bodhi feedback.
Certainly not
On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 14:38 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
which go through updates-testing. They do not file positive
feedback for every single package because there's just too many, but if
they notice breakage, they file negative feedback.
And they simply don't and can't notice all
On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 18:01 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
It doesn't change anything, though. No feedback = nothing to rely on.
These recent discussions on this list could have been fruitful, btw.
For some people it has become a game of I'm right - you aren't,
unfortunately.
Nothing like
On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 09:11:10 -0800, Adam wrote:
On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 18:01 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
It doesn't change anything, though. No feedback = nothing to rely on.
These recent discussions on this list could have been fruitful, btw.
For some people it has become a game of
On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 09:33:02 -0800, Adam wrote:
No, not in a clear way. Instead, you keep emphasising that no negative
feedback is not equal to a package not having been tested at all. That's
just plain useless. Not even all broken deps are reported in bodhi.
Why do you keep talking
On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 22:16 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 09:33:02 -0800, Adam wrote:
No, not in a clear way. Instead, you keep emphasising that no negative
feedback is not equal to a package not having been tested at all. That's
just plain useless. Not even all
On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 01:46:34PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
Ah. You're looking at it on a kind of micro level; 'how can I tell this
package has been tested?'
For a package maintainer it is especially interesting, whether the own
update has been tested.
Maybe it makes it clearer if I
On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 13:46:34 -0800, Adam wrote:
Ah. You're looking at it on a kind of micro level; 'how can I tell this
package has been tested?'
Exactly. Because I don't like to act on assumptions.
And zero feedback is only an indicator for doesn't break badly, if
there are N1 testers with
On Wednesday 03 March 2010 20:14:16 Peter Jones wrote:
On 03/03/2010 01:17 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Mathieu Bridon wrote:
In the end, I think the question is not about giving users what users
want (be it frequent updates or stalled releases), but giving users
what we see as a better deal
Hi Jesse,
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 11:57 AM, Jesse Keating jkeat...@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 17:16 +0100, Thomas Janssen wrote:
Erm, dont take it personally please, but, have you ever used a
different distro? One example is openSUSE (yes, i use it on some boxen
here) does exactly
On Tue, 2010-03-02 at 21:07 -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
On Tue, 2 Mar 2010, Jesse Keating wrote:
Ok... removing deprecated uses is a questionable at best update, but
here is the kicker. The perl in F11 is perl-5.10.0-82.fc11. So these
functions aren't actually deprecated in F11. So... why
In perl we have to often update package to fix one thing, but
this update needs higher version of different package, so we
are forced to update package even in older releases.
Chris and Ralf explained our reasons well in previous posts.
There are more worthless updates, so you should send some
On Wednesday 03 March 2010, Jon Masters wrote:
On Tue, 2010-03-02 at 21:07 -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
On Tue, 2 Mar 2010, Jesse Keating wrote:
Ok... removing deprecated uses is a questionable at best update, but
here is the kicker. The perl in F11 is perl-5.10.0-82.fc11. So these
On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 11:05:23PM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 08:02 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Why? Because you say so? We aren't doing that stuff now and things are
working just fine, thank you very much! We don't HAVE to change anything at
all!
This I
On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 09:07:29PM -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
On Tue, 2 Mar 2010, Jesse Keating wrote:
Ok... removing deprecated uses is a questionable at best update, but
here is the kicker. The perl in F11 is perl-5.10.0-82.fc11. So these
functions aren't actually deprecated in F11.
On Wednesday 03 March 2010, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 03/03/2010 09:03 AM, Jon Masters wrote:
On Tue, 2010-03-02 at 21:07 -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
On Tue, 2 Mar 2010, Jesse Keating wrote:
Ok... removing deprecated uses is a questionable at best update, but
here is the kicker. The perl in
On Wednesday 03 March 2010 08:05:23 Jesse Keating wrote:
On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 08:02 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Why? Because you say so? We aren't doing that stuff now and things are
working just fine, thank you very much! We don't HAVE to change anything
at all!
This I believe to be the
On Wednesday 03 March 2010 09:40:15 Alexander Kurtakov wrote:
On Wednesday 03 March 2010, Jon Masters wrote:
On Tue, 2010-03-02 at 21:07 -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
On Tue, 2 Mar 2010, Jesse Keating wrote:
Ok... removing deprecated uses is a questionable at best update, but
here is
On 03/03/2010 10:17 AM, Alexander Kurtakov wrote:
On Wednesday 03 March 2010, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 03/03/2010 09:03 AM, Jon Masters wrote:
On Tue, 2010-03-02 at 21:07 -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
On Tue, 2 Mar 2010, Jesse Keating wrote:
Ok... removing deprecated uses is a questionable at best
On Tue, 2 Mar 2010 22:57:56 -0500, Toshio wrote:
On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 09:07:29PM -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
On Tue, 2 Mar 2010, Jesse Keating wrote:
Ok... removing deprecated uses is a questionable at best update, but
here is the kicker. The perl in F11 is perl-5.10.0-82.fc11.
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 9:03 AM, Jon Masters jonat...@jonmasters.org wrote:
On Tue, 2010-03-02 at 21:07 -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
On Tue, 2 Mar 2010, Jesse Keating wrote:
Ok... removing deprecated uses is a questionable at best update, but
here is the kicker. The perl in F11 is
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 9:51 AM, Till Maas opensou...@till.name wrote:
On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 09:07:29PM -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
On Tue, 2 Mar 2010, Jesse Keating wrote:
Ok... removing deprecated uses is a questionable at best update, but
here is the kicker. The perl in F11 is
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 1:07 PM, Rakesh Pandit rakesh.pan...@gmail.com wrote:
On 3 March 2010 16:23, Thomas Janssen wrote:
[..]
BUT, Fedora was my choice BECAUSE i get/got the latest and greatest.
Even without running rawhide/factory/cooker.
[..]
Well, update to latest release (every 6
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 13:33, Thomas Janssen thom...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
What cost? I'm the maintainer of those packages. If i want them as
well for people who want it in F-11, i give it to them. Why should i
force someone to upgrade every 6 month? Or even worse to rawhide as
mentioned in
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 13:51, Thomas Janssen thom...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 1:45 PM, Mathieu Bridon
boche...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 13:33, Thomas Janssen thom...@fedoraproject.org
wrote:
What cost? I'm the maintainer of those packages. If i
On 3 March 2010 18:03, Thomas Janssen wrote:
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 1:07 PM, Rakesh Pandit wrote:
On 3 March 2010 16:23, Thomas Janssen wrote:
[..]
BUT, Fedora was my choice BECAUSE i get/got the latest and greatest.
Even without running rawhide/factory/cooker.
[..]
Well, update to latest
On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Seth Vidal wrote:
And stages non-critical/important updates so our QA team can test and
check them over more thoroughly and align testing goals and days to help
foster and create a more active and involved testing infrastructure.
Congratulations for
On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Till Maas wrote:
On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 11:05:23PM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 08:02 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Why? Because you say so? We aren't doing that stuff now and things are
working just fine, thank you very much! We don't HAVE to change
On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
So far, I haven't seen any indication of such a team being in existance
(c.f. dnssec-conf, kernel) nor am I aware of any means for testing such
perl-modules (perl-modules typically are equipped with a testsuite).
The real testing is performed by
On Wednesday 03 March 2010 15:16:05 Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Thomas Janssen thom...@fedoraproject.org said:
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 9:03 AM, Jon Masters jonat...@jonmasters.org
wrote:
My own personal opinion is that stable updates should only fix serious
issues, or security
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 1:59 PM, Mathieu Bridon
boche...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 13:51, Thomas Janssen thom...@fedoraproject.org
wrote:
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 1:45 PM, Mathieu Bridon
boche...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 13:33, Thomas Janssen
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 3:16 PM, Chris Adams cmad...@hiwaay.net wrote:
Once upon a time, Thomas Janssen thom...@fedoraproject.org said:
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 9:03 AM, Jon Masters jonat...@jonmasters.org wrote:
My own personal opinion is that stable updates should only fix serious
issues, or
Once upon a time, Thomas Janssen thom...@fedoraproject.org said:
If you want RHEL, use it.
People keep saying this, as if the opposite of updates every day is
release every 3 years. Those are two extremes, and there is a lot of
space in between.
On my mirror, updates/12 is approaching the
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 3:55 PM, Chris Adams cmad...@hiwaay.net wrote:
Once upon a time, Thomas Janssen thom...@fedoraproject.org said:
If you want RHEL, use it.
People keep saying this, as if the opposite of updates every day is
release every 3 years. Those are two extremes, and there is a
Seth Vidal wrote:
If you can't understand it, perhaps you should reconsider your role on a
technical committee like fesco.
I understood your sentence, that doesn't make it any less jargon.
* And most importantly, even if we were to accept that it could lead to
better QA (which I doubt),
On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 09:45 +0100, Till Maas wrote:
On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 11:05:23PM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 08:02 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Why? Because you say so? We aren't doing that stuff now and things are
working just fine, thank you very much! We
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
Let F11 rott because it's EOL soon?
Pardon, but you can't be serious about this.
At least I am trying to provide all released Fedoras with same amount of
attention.
+1
I really don't see why we should treat previous stable as a second-class
citizen. It's supported,
On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
Feel free to think so, however can not disagree more.
Ralf, we've never agreed on much of anything. Why should this be
different?
What do you expect? I consider you (and a couple of other further
members of FPB and FESCO) to be gradually running
Thomas Janssen wrote:
The problem is that the end-user has no idea what rawhide means. Why
not let them know. I said already a few times, give people new to
fedora (fresh installation) something like openSUSE has. A tour trough
Fedora, and educate them there. It pops up automatically if you
On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Till Maas wrote:
On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 08:42:57AM -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Till Maas wrote:
Are there even any metrics about how many bad updates happened? For me
bug that can be fixed issuing an update are a lot more than regressions
with
Rakesh Pandit wrote:
Well, update to latest release (every 6 month) and you will get latest
and greatest anyway.
With a wait of up to 6 months. That's way too long. That leaves Rawhide,
which isn't suitable for production use. So no option left.
Kevin Kofler
--
devel mailing list
On 3/3/2010 2:27, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
Let F11 rott because it's EOL soon?
Pardon, but you can't be serious about this.
At least I am trying to provide all released Fedoras with same amount of
attention.
Right now Fedora releases are either Supported or Unsupported. [1]
If we want to
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 4:43 PM, Jesse Keating jkeat...@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 16:08 +0100, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
So why we can't use it as our advantage and fill this gap?
We could very well fill that gap with rapid release cycles (every 6
months) and updates for those
On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Thomas Janssen wrote:
But that thread and the other monster thread are just wasted time
since it's already decided what will happen. And those people who
decided what will happen will have to live with it.
Well, there you see how dumb i am. That i
Chris Adams wrote:
Some packagers are turning Fedora into a rolling-update package
collection instead of a coherent distribution.
[snip]
If Fedora is going to be a rolling update package collection (despite
what Kevin tries to claim about some mythical semi-rolling, that's
what we are
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 9:18 AM, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote:
Thomas Janssen wrote:
But that thread and the other monster thread are just wasted time
since it's already decided what will happen. And those people who
decided what will happen will have to live with it.
Well, there
Till Maas wrote:
How about we keep updates and updates-testing more like they are and add
another repo like updates-stable that follows your policy and is the
only updates repo enabled by default.
That's essentially what Adam Williamson and Doug Ledford (both inspired by
Mandriva) already
On 3/3/2010 2:51, Till Maas wrote:
On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 09:07:29PM -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
How about we keep updates and updates-testing more like they are and add
another repo like updates-stable that follows your policy and is the
only updates repo enabled by default.
Splitting the
On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 17:16 +0100, Thomas Janssen wrote:
Erm, dont take it personally please, but, have you ever used a
different distro? One example is openSUSE (yes, i use it on some boxen
here) does exactly that. What's with Debian stable? And i bet even
ubuntu is like that.
Neither
* Thomas Janssen [03/03/2010 17:41] :
Really? And that shows me the QT version now? I must miss something.
If they ask about F12 KDE, who knows.
Emmanuel
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On 03/03/2010 04:51 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
For me personally the type of update I'd like to see slowed down is the
pure enhancement update or new package updates, ones that do nothing but
swallow up the latest upstream build or scm snapshot to add new
features.
#1 on your personal list
On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 08:57:53AM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
Neither OpenSUSE nor Ubuntu are as quick to pick up new technologies and
run with them into a stable release. Quite often they pick things
up /after/ Fedora has done a release with them and worked through all
the hard problems.
On 03/03/2010 05:10 PM, Seth Vidal wrote:
On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Peter Lemenkov wrote:
2010/3/3 Seth Vidalskvi...@fedoraproject.org:
On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
Feel free to think so, however can not disagree more.
Ralf, we've never agreed on much of anything. Why should
On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 10:50:22AM -0600, Garrett Holmstrom wrote:
On 3/3/2010 2:51, Till Maas wrote:
On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 09:07:29PM -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
How about we keep updates and updates-testing more like they are and add
another repo like updates-stable that follows your
On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 05:45:02PM +0100, Patrice Dumas wrote:
On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 05:37:14PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
actually works (i.e. if it doesn't lead to maintainers only caring about
the
conservative stream).
Packagers would then have the choice, I think this can only be
On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 08:16:05AM -0600, Chris Adams wrote:
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 9:03 AM, Jon Masters jonat...@jonmasters.org wrote:
My own personal opinion is that stable updates should only fix serious
issues, or security problems. Fedora has such a short lifetime as it is,
I
Jaroslav Reznik (jrez...@redhat.com) said:
It's quite similar to our KDE stability proposal [1] - (from F13 released
POV)
F11 eol, F12 stable with security and bugfix updates and F13 current version
with latest but stable software. You can't force users to use F14 (aka
rawhide) to be
On 03/03/2010 07:03 PM, James Antill wrote:
On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 18:06 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 03/03/2010 05:10 PM, Seth Vidal wrote:
On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Peter Lemenkov wrote:
And what about tickets, closed with FIXED UPSTREAM w/o actually
applying fix to a package?
Those items
Seth Vidal wrote:
Those items will be released in the next release of yum or in the next
fedora release.
That can be quite a long time. Providing bugfixes to our stable releases is
important! I won't complain if you do upstream releases regularly and
systematically push them as updates, but
On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 11:58 -0600, Matt Domsch wrote:
I added a proposal to this page to codify my thoughts.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Release_Lifecycle_Proposals
I do like this proposal, and I like where you were going by defining why
it is we do releases, and what it means to
On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Thomas Janssen wrote:
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 7:34 PM, Mike McGrath mmcgr...@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Jesse Keating wrote:
We could very well fill that gap with rapid release cycles (every 6
months) and updates for those releases
Bill Nottingham wrote:
When there's no policy, and the user has to guess whether or not they
need to do this for every package on their system, however, you have
a mess.
The idea is that our updates, even version upgrades, Just Work. We don't and
shouldn't push stuff which is known to regress
Bill Nottingham wrote:
Jaroslav Reznik (jrez...@redhat.com) said:
It's quite similar to our KDE stability proposal [1] - (from F13 released
POV) F11 eol, F12 stable with security and bugfix updates and F13 current
version with latest but stable software. You can't force users to use F14
(aka
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 7:49 PM, Bill Nottingham nott...@redhat.com wrote:
Thomas Janssen (thom...@fedoraproject.org) said:
When there's no policy, and the user has to guess whether or not they
need to do this for every package on their system, however, you have
a mess.
Well, except
Emmanuel Seyman wrote:
* Thomas Janssen [03/03/2010 17:41] :
Really? And that shows me the QT version now? I must miss something.
If they ask about F12 KDE, who knows.
Usually, the first question I ask is Do you have all updates installed? If
the answer is no, I ask them to install the
Once upon a time, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at said:
Don't give up the fight yet!
I also see that things are not looking good, but we need to fight this to
the bitter end, or we'll forever feel guilty about having done nothing to
try to prevent Fedora from getting ruined.
With that
Once upon a time, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at said:
Usually, the first question I ask is Do you have all updates installed? If
the answer is no, I ask them to install the updates and won't answer any
question until they do. I'm not going to waste my time trying to debug
already
On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 01:00:54PM -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Jaroslav Reznik (jrez...@redhat.com) said:
It's quite similar to our KDE stability proposal [1] - (from F13 released
POV)
F11 eol, F12 stable with security and bugfix updates and F13 current
version
with latest but
Till Maas wrote:
Bug avoiding regressions at all costs is what some are willing to take.
With the repo split there can be at least better co-operation as e.g.
splitting the distribution. At least for me as a FOSS believer getting
upstream bugfixes fast (especially if I submitted them upstream)
On 03/03/2010 01:17 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Mathieu Bridon wrote:
In the end, I think the question is not about giving users what users
want (be it frequent updates or stalled releases), but giving users
what we see as a better deal for them.
I think wanting to decide for your users is a
Matt Domsch wrote:
The _only_ reason to name something with a 'version' or a 'release' is
to provide a set point for consistency, either in people's minds
(marketing), or to provide a technical baseline for interoperability.
If we continue to take the technical baselines, and move them ad-hoc,
On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 11:07:27AM -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Till Maas wrote:
On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 08:42:57AM -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Till Maas wrote:
Are there even any metrics about how many bad updates happened? For me
bug that can
On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 11:58:23AM -0600, Matt Domsch wrote:
On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 08:16:05AM -0600, Chris Adams wrote:
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 9:03 AM, Jon Masters jonat...@jonmasters.org
wrote:
My own personal opinion is that stable updates should only fix serious
issues, or
Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at said:
Usually, the first question I ask is Do you have all updates installed?
If the answer is no, I ask them to install the updates and won't answer
any question until they do. I'm not going to waste my time trying to
On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 08:04:21PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Till Maas wrote:
As far as I understood, there is no need to backport security fixes. One
could just copy the package with the security fix with all needed
dependencies to the stable repo imho.
I think people are going to
Mike McGrath wrote:
Their release cycles, on release day, are already older then our releases.
That's the unique role we fill. Well we used to. Now we don't fill any
particular role at all.
Wrong, we fill the role of providing version upgrades in stable releases.
This also has the side
On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 08:08:22PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Till Maas wrote:
Bug avoiding regressions at all costs is what some are willing to take.
With the repo split there can be at least better co-operation as e.g.
splitting the distribution. At least for me as a FOSS believer getting
Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
It is a reason but it's not the only reason. Semi-rolling releases allow
a subset of the entire packager community to work on an update as a set
and then push them when they're known to work together. Currently rawhide
is not so coherent.
We could change rawhide from
On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 19:43 +0100, Thomas Janssen wrote:
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 7:01 PM, Bill Nottingham nott...@redhat.com wrote:
Thomas Janssen (thom...@fedoraproject.org) said:
As i said before. Nobody holds a gun on my head and tells me you have
to update that packages. If you dont want
On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 20:33 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Peter Jones wrote:
On 03/03/2010 01:17 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Mathieu Bridon wrote:
In the end, I think the question is not about giving users what users
want (be it frequent updates or stalled releases), but giving users
what we
On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 03:03 -0500, Jon Masters wrote:
This isn't $Enterprise_Linux, it doesn't come with a guarantee and does
expect to be a moving target, but that doesn't mean there can't be a
predictable update cycle and a reasonable expectation that updates are
necessary and won't break
On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 17:04 +0100, Till Maas wrote:
I mind have misunderstood it, but afaics it only says that it will be
tested, because it spent time in updates-testing, but this is not even
true nowadays, even if packages stay long in updates-testing.
as we've explained several times, most
On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 17:37 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Till Maas wrote:
How about we keep updates and updates-testing more like they are and add
another repo like updates-stable that follows your policy and is the
only updates repo enabled by default.
That's essentially what Adam
On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 08:57 -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
Neither OpenSUSE nor Ubuntu are as quick to pick up new technologies and
run with them into a stable release. Quite often they pick things
up /after/ Fedora has done a release with them and worked through all
the hard problems. They
On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 13:49 -0600, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
Just because KDE 4.2 and Qt 4.5 are buggy shouldn't have given 4.4/4.6
a free ride into stable. Backporting bugs is part of any Fedora package.
Now that you got your way, this is deteriorating into a shift by you to
move Fedora
On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Adam Williamson wrote:
I think it's ultimately a Board decision whether we pick one of the two
target groups and stick to it, or whether we try to cater to both. That
decision should basically make it obvious what we should do with our
update streams.
It's a fesco
Jesse Keating wrote:
No data in the bodhi ticket.
Rpm changelog says Upstream update
This sucks. While it's fine for the RPM changelog to say that, it'd need
something more useful in the update notes, at which point the maintainer
would also have noticed the futility of this particular
On Tue, 2 Mar 2010, Jesse Keating wrote:
Ok... removing deprecated uses is a questionable at best update, but
here is the kicker. The perl in F11 is perl-5.10.0-82.fc11. So these
functions aren't actually deprecated in F11. So... why is this update
going out? What possible benefit does
On 03/03/2010 02:29 AM, Jesse Keating wrote:
It took me all of about 2 minutes to find a worthless pending update for
Fedora 11.
Hip shot ;)
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Locale-Maketext-Lexicon-0.78-1.fc11
No data in the bodhi ticket.
Rpm changelog says Upstream update
If
On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 5:29 PM, Jesse Keating jkeat...@redhat.com wrote:
It took me all of about 2 minutes to find a worthless pending update for
Fedora 11.
Before we get into this, do we have any consensus on empirical
standards for determining what a worthless update is? Judging by
the
On 03/03/2010 02:55 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Jesse Keating wrote:
No data in the bodhi ticket.
Rpm changelog says Upstream update
This sucks.
Your bikeshed ...
While it's fine for the RPM changelog to say that, it'd need
something more useful in the update notes, at which point the
Once upon a time, Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de said:
On 03/03/2010 02:29 AM, Jesse Keating wrote:
What possible benefit does the user get from this?
Keeping the rpms in sync with CPAN.
What is the benefit to the user in keeping the RPMS in sync with CPAN?
Nothing of consequence (at
Seth Vidal wrote:
2. We would issue security updates whenever they happened. Issue bugfix
updates once every 2 weeks. Everything else once a month.
And make regression fixes wait for 2 weeks? Very bad plan. (And no matter
how much testing you do, there will ALWAYS be regressions discovered in
On 03/03/2010 04:24 AM, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Ralf Corsepiusrc040...@freenet.de said:
On 03/03/2010 02:29 AM, Jesse Keating wrote:
What possible benefit does the user get from this?
Keeping the rpms in sync with CPAN.
What is the benefit to the user in keeping the RPMS in
On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 09:07:29PM -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
On Tue, 2 Mar 2010, Jesse Keating wrote:
Ok... removing deprecated uses is a questionable at best update, but
here is the kicker. The perl in F11 is perl-5.10.0-82.fc11. So these
functions aren't actually deprecated in F11.
On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
Wait until you will want to address a serious/critical bugfix to a
perl-module which carries a dependency on a perl-module you haven't kept
in sync with CPAN = You'd have to resort to either fastestly upgrade
a series of perl-modules or resort to
1 - 100 of 110 matches
Mail list logo
