On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 6:12 PM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-2922/libreoffice-4.2.1.1-1.fc20?_csrf_token=a6a024f6e2d35ad3fb8666c1244e215a6aa2
how can people pretend installation went smoothly, no issue detected during
Am 10.03.2014 20:18, schrieb drago01:
On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 6:12 PM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-2922/libreoffice-4.2.1.1-1.fc20?_csrf_token=a6a024f6e2d35ad3fb8666c1244e215a6aa2
how can people pretend installation went
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 8:35 PM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote:
Am 10.03.2014 20:18, schrieb drago01:
On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 6:12 PM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net
wrote:
Am 10.03.2014 20:35, schrieb Reindl Harald:
Am 10.03.2014 20:18, schrieb drago01:
On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 6:12 PM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net
wrote:
On Mon, 2014-03-10 at 20:18 +0100, drago01 wrote:
On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 6:12 PM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-2922/libreoffice-4.2.1.1-1.fc20?_csrf_token=a6a024f6e2d35ad3fb8666c1244e215a6aa2
how can people pretend
On Mon, 2014-03-10 at 20:40 +0100, drago01 wrote:
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 8:35 PM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote:
Am 10.03.2014 20:18, schrieb drago01:
On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 6:12 PM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net
wrote:
On Thu, 2014-02-27 at 09:07 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Thu, 2014-02-27 at 02:18 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Miloslav Trmač wrote:
I fully agree with you testers giving +1 is not even close to proper
validation, but what alternative to get proper validation do you propose
as an
Michael Catanzaro wrote:
Or requiring min time in updates-testing (2-3 days) before an
autokarma-assisted push.
Please no even more complex heuristics! The system is already hard enough to
understand as is. Just turn the flawed heuristics off.
Kevin Kofler
--
devel mailing list
On Thu, 2014-02-27 at 02:18 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Miloslav Trmač wrote:
I fully agree with you testers giving +1 is not even close to proper
validation, but what alternative to get proper validation do you propose
as an improvement? Dropping autokarma would replace broken validation
On Thu, 2014-02-27 at 09:07 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Thu, 2014-02-27 at 02:18 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Miloslav Trmač wrote:
I fully agree with you testers giving +1 is not even close to proper
validation, but what alternative to get proper validation do you propose
as an
Christopher Meng wrote:
Kevin, I think you are talking about releasing models...
I'm talking about having the maintainer actually OK the push to stable after
having checked the situation (or at least he/she is supposed to have checked
it!), rather than letting the update go out automatically
On Thu, 2014-02-27 at 02:18 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
But again, I think that even with no other policy change, just
removing the
karma automatism misfeature from Bodhi would be an improvement.
Or requiring min time in updates-testing (2-3 days) before an
autokarma-assisted push.
Am 28.02.2014 03:54, schrieb Michael Catanzaro:
On Thu, 2014-02-27 at 02:18 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
But again, I think that even with no other policy change, just
removing the
karma automatism misfeature from Bodhi would be an improvement.
Or requiring min time in updates-testing (2-3
Miloslav Trmač wrote:
I fully agree with you testers giving +1 is not even close to proper
validation, but what alternative to get proper validation do you propose
as an improvement? Dropping autokarma would replace broken validation
with *no* validation; that's not an improvement.
The
On Mon, 2014-02-24 at 05:16 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Adam Williamson wrote:
I really don't know why you make these suggestions. I mean, you must
know no-one is going to reply Why, Kevin! What a brilliant idea! We'll
do so immediately!, so what's the point?
Why not? That's the only
Kevin, I think you are talking about releasing models...
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
2014-02-24 5:16 GMT+01:00 Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at:
It is very obvious that autokarma is NOT working. It is causing way more
breakage than direct stable pushes (or manual pushes with too little
karma) ever caused. If direct stable pushes (or manual pushes with too
little karma)
Am 24.02.2014 04:59, schrieb Kevin Kofler:
Reindl Harald wrote:
how can people pretend installation went smoothly, no issue detected
during basic document manipulation for packages which are not installable
at all due dependencie problems?
Indeed, people giving +1 after manually installing
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-2922/libreoffice-4.2.1.1-1.fc20?_csrf_token=a6a024f6e2d35ad3fb8666c1244e215a6aa2
how can people pretend installation went smoothly, no issue detected during
basic
document manipulation for packages which are not installable at all due
Hi,
Maybe they didn't have any issues?
2014-02-23 18:12 GMT+01:00 Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-2922/libreoffice-4.2.1.1-1.fc20?_csrf_token=a6a024f6e2d35ad3fb8666c1244e215a6aa2
how can people pretend installation went
On Sun, 23 Feb 2014 18:12:55 +0100
Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-2922/libreoffice-4.2.1.1-1.fc20?_csrf_token=a6a024f6e2d35ad3fb8666c1244e215a6aa2
how can people pretend installation went smoothly, no issue detected during
that is impossible
libreoffice-core is affected by a broken dependency
frankly i have the koji repo endabled (look at the bottom)
so the only option to explain teh positive karma is a login
on bodhi, don't care about the installed version and for what
one is giving karma (there where more
Let's test this one asap to prevent epoch(if you want):
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libcmis-0.4.1-2.fc20,mdds-0.10.2-1.fc20
Last weekend bodhi seemed very slow on processing updates, so I
downloaded and installed from koji by myself.
--
devel mailing list
On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 6:31 PM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote:
that is impossible
libreoffice-core is affected by a broken dependency
frankly i have the koji repo endabled (look at the bottom)
I have no idea what the koji repo is but
On 02/24/2014 12:12 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-2922/libreoffice-4.2.1.1-1.fc20?_csrf_token=a6a024f6e2d35ad3fb8666c1244e215a6aa2
how can people pretend installation went smoothly, no issue detected during
basic
document manipulation for
Am 23.02.2014 18:33, schrieb Christopher Meng:
Let's test this one asap to prevent epoch(if you want):
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libcmis-0.4.1-2.fc20,mdds-0.10.2-1.fc20
Last weekend bodhi seemed very slow on processing updates, so I
downloaded and installed from koji by
On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 6:35 PM, Michel Alexandre Salim
sali...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On 02/24/2014 12:12 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-2922/libreoffice-4.2.1.1-1.fc20?_csrf_token=a6a024f6e2d35ad3fb8666c1244e215a6aa2
how can people
Am 23.02.2014 18:35, schrieb drago01:
On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 6:31 PM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote:
that is impossible
libreoffice-core is affected by a broken dependency
frankly i have the koji repo endabled (look at the bottom)
I have no idea what the koji repo is but
Am 23.02.2014 18:36, schrieb Reindl Harald:
Am 23.02.2014 18:33, schrieb Christopher Meng:
Let's test this one asap to prevent epoch(if you want):
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libcmis-0.4.1-2.fc20,mdds-0.10.2-1.fc20
Last weekend bodhi seemed very slow on processing updates, so
On 24/02/14 06:29, Susi Lehtola wrote:
On Sun, 23 Feb 2014 18:12:55 +0100
Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-2922/libreoffice-4.2.1.1-1.fc20?_csrf_token=a6a024f6e2d35ad3fb8666c1244e215a6aa2
how can people pretend installation
Am 23.02.2014 22:40, schrieb Theodore Lee:
On 24/02/14 06:29, Susi Lehtola wrote:
On Sun, 23 Feb 2014 18:12:55 +0100
Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote:
On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 10:58 PM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote:
Am 23.02.2014 22:40, schrieb Theodore Lee:
On 24/02/14 06:29, Susi Lehtola wrote:
On Sun, 23 Feb 2014 18:12:55 +0100
Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote:
My apologies on the slow bodhi updates last week.
There were a number of complications the past week related to the work
flow of bodhi updates.
Took me a while to resolve some problems, and see the updates to completion.
At least twice the updates push failed due to older NVR's in
updates-testing
On Sun, 2014-02-23 at 23:33 +0100, drago01 wrote:
and no you have to apologize from the maintainer does change that
if the maintainers would run a baisc virtual machine consuming
ordinary repos without manual overrides such mistakes would be
recognized by them..
Well the
On Mon, 2014-02-24 at 01:33 +0800, Christopher Meng wrote:
Let's test this one asap to prevent epoch(if you want):
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libcmis-0.4.1-2.fc20,mdds-0.10.2-1.fc20
Last weekend bodhi seemed very slow on processing updates, so I
downloaded and installed from
On Sun, 2014-02-23 at 18:36 +0100, drago01 wrote:
On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 6:35 PM, Michel Alexandre Salim
sali...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
One potential workflow bug with this karmic automatic-push-to-stable: under
the normal time-delayed path, any editing of the build reverts the package
On Sun, 2014-02-23 at 18:12 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-2922/libreoffice-4.2.1.1-1.fc20?_csrf_token=a6a024f6e2d35ad3fb8666c1244e215a6aa2
how can people pretend installation went smoothly, no issue detected during
basic
document
On 2/24/14, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
Christopher, Harald's going overboard with his emphasis as usual, but he
is correct that you should take extra care when giving karma if you
don't get the update from the updates-testing repository. In future,
please do be careful to check
Adam Williamson wrote:
Thanks for bringing this up. I've written to each of the people who
provided positive feedback asking them to be careful in giving feedback
for updates before they reach updates-testing in future and providing
some information on the requirements for dependencies in
On Mon, 2014-02-24 at 04:44 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Adam Williamson wrote:
Thanks for bringing this up. I've written to each of the people who
provided positive feedback asking them to be careful in giving feedback
for updates before they reach updates-testing in future and providing
Reindl Harald wrote:
how can people pretend installation went smoothly, no issue detected
during basic document manipulation for packages which are not installable
at all due dependencie problems?
Indeed, people giving +1 after manually installing dependencies (!!!) from
Koji (for a package
Adam Williamson wrote:
I really don't know why you make these suggestions. I mean, you must
know no-one is going to reply Why, Kevin! What a brilliant idea! We'll
do so immediately!, so what's the point?
Why not? That's the only reply that possibly makes sense.
It is very obvious that
42 matches
Mail list logo
