On 23/01/2014 02:02 πμ, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jan 2014 00:41:52 +0400
Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com wrote:
2014/1/23 Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com:
Can you please file a infrastructure ticket on this and I will get
it updated.
Don't know what others think, but I personally
Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
I'm confused, are you talking about: https://fedorahosted.org/pkgdb2/ ?
If this is now on Fedora Hosted, that's a good thing. :-) Thank you for
that! So you don't have to feel targeted (anymore), you already did the
right thing.
Kevin Kofler
--
devel
Kevin Fenzi wrote:
While github is nice for pulls and patches, it's not so great for
tickets and support needs.
github issues are very primitive last I looked and wouldn't meet Fedora
Infrastructures needs, IMHO.
I also object to the idea of hosting critical parts of our infrastructure on
On Wed, 2014-01-22 at 17:02 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jan 2014 00:41:52 +0400
Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com wrote:
2014/1/23 Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com:
Can you please file a infrastructure ticket on this and I will get
it updated.
Don't know what others think,
Peter Lemenkov wrote:
IMHO you're absolutely wrong. Fortunately it seems that not so much
people agree with you since I see a lot of activily on a given
third-party proprietary web service (compared with a dead silence at
fedorahosted). So actually people already voted, and they voted
against
Adam Williamson wrote:
And you can, of course, just mail patches to mailing lists. That's what
git was designed for in the first place, and it appears to work
perfectly well for kernel and anaconda devs...
Or simply attach them to an issue in the issue tracker, which works with
practically
On Fri, 24 Jan 2014 01:23:13 +0100
Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote:
That's why we need enforcement. There should be a statement from a
competent committee (Board, FESCo, whomever) that effective NOW,
stuff can ONLY be uploaded to production (and staging too, probably)
infrastructure
On Fri, 2014-01-24 at 01:23 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Fedora MUST NOT be at the whim of third-party code hosting services,
especially proprietary ones.
I don't see how the code being on github means you're at anyone's
'whim'. git is a self-contained, distributed scm. If github turns evil,
On Thu, 2014-01-23 at 16:34 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
It's hardly a bitbucket
situation.
Damnit, I mean bitkeeper. I have those two wires crossed somewhere in my
brain.
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
On 23 January 2014 17:28, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote:
Adam Williamson wrote:request process down people's throats).
has anyone yet publicly noted the irony of someone building a wildly
successful proprietary SCM platform on top of a project that was written
to rescue the
Hi
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 7:34 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
I don't like github being non-free, particularly, but the practical
consequences of that are fairly minor.
Tickets and history of those tickets can be important
Rahul
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
On Thu, 2014-01-23 at 20:05 -0500, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Hi
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 7:34 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
I don't like github being non-free, particularly, but the
practical
consequences of that are fairly minor.
Tickets and
On 01/24/2014 01:05 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Hi
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 7:34 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
I don't like github being non-free, particularly, but the practical
consequences of that are fairly minor.
Tickets and history of those tickets can be important
You can
Once upon a time, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at said:
This shows that people have not learned ANYTHING from the ButtKeeper fiasco.
:-(
I think there's a big difference between that and Github. AFAIK Github
isn't trying to claim ownership of all data and metadata related to
hosted
On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 01:23:13AM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Peter Lemenkov wrote:
IMHO you're absolutely wrong. Fortunately it seems that not so much
people agree with you since I see a lot of activily on a given
third-party proprietary web service (compared with a dead silence at
Fedora 18 End of Life
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/announce/2014-January/003194.html
boot.fedoraproject.org (BFO):
- Fedora-18-i386/x86_64
https://git.fedorahosted.org/cgit/fedora-infrastructure.git/plain/bfo/pxelinux.cfg/fedora_install.conf
GOTO EOL
https://git.fedorahosted.org
On Wed, 22 Jan 2014 19:52:23 +0100
poma pomidorabelis...@gmail.com wrote:
Fedora 18 End of Life
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/announce/2014-January/003194.html
boot.fedoraproject.org (BFO):
- Fedora-18-i386/x86_64
https://git.fedorahosted.org/cgit/fedora-infrastructure.git
On 22.01.2014 21:03, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jan 2014 19:52:23 +0100
poma pomidorabelis...@gmail.com wrote:
Fedora 18 End of Life
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/announce/2014-January/003194.html
boot.fedoraproject.org (BFO):
- Fedora-18-i386/x86_64
https
2014/1/23 Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com:
Can you please file a infrastructure ticket on this and I will get it
updated.
Don't know what others think, but I personally prefer GitHub pull
requests because they are much simpler and don't involve any
interaction with stone age software like trac or
On Thu, 23 Jan 2014 00:41:52 +0400
Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com wrote:
2014/1/23 Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com:
Can you please file a infrastructure ticket on this and I will get
it updated.
Don't know what others think, but I personally prefer GitHub pull
requests because they are
On Wed, 2011-08-10 at 18:26 +0200, Rudolf Kastl wrote:
Hello,
A bit of (hopefully) constructive feedback. It might help with testing
and adoption of fedora if the rcs and alpha releases are made
available in the bfo setup. Actually within the experimental folder
there is only a tc1 of f15
On 08/11/2011 05:26 AM, Vratislav Podzimek wrote:
On Wed, 2011-08-10 at 18:26 +0200, Rudolf Kastl wrote:
Last time i tried an install via bfo it didnt really select mirrors
close to me. (i think for the install it didnt use a mirrorlist but
instead a hardcoded repo by default) Is this still
On Thu, 2011-08-11 at 06:46 -0700, John Reiser wrote:
On 08/11/2011 05:26 AM, Vratislav Podzimek wrote:
On Wed, 2011-08-10 at 18:26 +0200, Rudolf Kastl wrote:
Last time i tried an install via bfo it didnt really select mirrors
close to me. (i think for the install it didnt use a
2011/8/11 Vratislav Podzimek vpodz...@redhat.com:
On Thu, 2011-08-11 at 06:46 -0700, John Reiser wrote:
On 08/11/2011 05:26 AM, Vratislav Podzimek wrote:
On Wed, 2011-08-10 at 18:26 +0200, Rudolf Kastl wrote:
Last time i tried an install via bfo it didnt really select mirrors
close to me.
On Wed, 10 Aug 2011 18:26:43 +0200
Rudolf Kastl che...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
A bit of (hopefully) constructive feedback. It might help with testing
and adoption of fedora if the rcs and alpha releases are made
available in the bfo setup. Actually within the experimental folder
there is
Hello,
A bit of (hopefully) constructive feedback. It might help with testing
and adoption of fedora if the rcs and alpha releases are made
available in the bfo setup. Actually within the experimental folder
there is only a tc1 of f15 currently.
Potential ideas for bfo:
* keep the experimental
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 02:02:28PM +0100, Rudolf Kastl wrote:
Heyyas. I actually gave boot.fedoraproject.org a testrun and i
realized that by default a repository called installation is
selected with a static repo url. instead i have actually figured that
selecting the usual standard fedora
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 8:16 AM, Jon Stanley jonstan...@gmail.com wrote:
.
The proper place to discuss would be
infrastruct...@lists.fedoraproject.org. BFO is essentially BKO, and
all of the custom stuff is in the infrastructure git repo, which can
be found at
On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 12:28 PM, Frank Murphy frankl...@gmail.com wrote:
send an email to: ad...@fedoraproject.org
Subject: BFO
The right people will get back to you.
Simply because one of the people that tends BFO is in sysadmin-main
(the people who receive ad...@fp.o) does not make it a
On 05/08/10 17:02, Patrick MONNERAT wrote:
Thanks in advance for any hint.
Patrick
send an email to: ad...@fedoraproject.org
Subject: BFO
The right people will get back to you.
--
Regards,
Frank Murphy
UTF_8 Encoded
Friend of Fedora
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
30 matches
Mail list logo
