Re: usb_modeswitch by default

On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 22:27 -0800, Dan Williams wrote: > On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 10:05 +, Bastien Nocera wrote: > > On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 09:42 +0530, Huzaifa Sidhpurwala wrote: > > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > > > Hash: SHA1 > > > > > > Hi, > > > I have taken over the maintainership f

Re: usb_modeswitch by default

On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 10:05 +, Bastien Nocera wrote: > On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 09:42 +0530, Huzaifa Sidhpurwala wrote: > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > > Hash: SHA1 > > > > Hi, > > I have taken over the maintainership from Robert, and the new > > usb_modeswitch rpms are in rawhide now. >

Re: Provide more testing feedback (was: Re: Refining the update queues/process)

On 10-03-05 17:00:12, Till Maas wrote: ... > But it seems that os.getlogin() is too smart for this purposes, e.g. > for me it always uses the username that started X, even if I "su -" > or "sudo -i" into another account. The Python docs[1] suggest using the environment variable LOGNAME. [1]

Re: Refining the update queues/process [Was: Worthless updates]

On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 23:52 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote: > 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

Re: Refining the update queues/process [Was: Worthless updates]

On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 23:47 +0100, Till Maas wrote: > 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

Re: Handling Rawhide

Rahul Sundaram wrote: > Everytime I push a new update for Fedora 13 I am also now committing and > building in Rawhide and I am wondering if that is necessary or what > would the best way to avoid repetitiveness? Would the buildsystem > inherit whatever is the newer version in between these branc

Handling Rawhide

Hi Everytime I push a new update for Fedora 13 I am also now committing and building in Rawhide and I am wondering if that is necessary or what would the best way to avoid repetitiveness? Would the buildsystem inherit whatever is the newer version in between these branches? Rahul -- devel mail

Fedora Release Engineering meeting summary for 2010-03-05

Minutes: http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2010-03-05/fedora-releng.2010-03-05-17.59.html Minutes (text): http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2010-03-05/fedora-releng.2010-03-05-17.59.txt Log: http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2010-03-05/fedora-releng.2010

Re: Fight bugs, not FESCo

On Sat, 6 Mar 2010, Till Maas wrote: > On Mon, Mar 01, 2010 at 10:42:32AM -0600, Mike McGrath wrote: > > > It looks like popcon has like 93000 profiles? Smolt has 1.8 million [1] > > and even at that level without package data we have horrible performance > > issues. If I were to add packages wi

Re: Fight bugs, not FESCo

On Mon, Mar 01, 2010 at 10:42:32AM -0600, Mike McGrath wrote: > It looks like popcon has like 93000 profiles? Smolt has 1.8 million [1] > and even at that level without package data we have horrible performance > issues. If I were to add packages with my knowledge of db's, smolt would > become u

Re: Push scripts, mash (was: Re: FESCo wants to ban direct stable pushes in Bodhi (urgent call for feedback))

On 03/06/2010 04:07 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote: > And in this case removing the option would actually allow us > to improve things (less duplication in the repos, smaller metadata for those > of us with pure 64-bit systems etc.), unlike some gratuitously removed > options in e.g. GNOME. > Can you

Re: Provide more testing feedback (was: Re: Refining the update queues/process)

On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 23:00:12 +0100, Till wrote: > On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 10:21:37PM +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote: > > > With defaults (no command-line args), it here prompted me to enter > > the FAS password for "localhost". I had to use --fas-username=... > > These are the two commands that a

Re: [389-devel] Please review: cleanup build warnings

On 03/05/2010 02:56 PM, Rich Megginson wrote: -- 389-devel mailing list 389-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-devel ack. --noriko smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature -- 389-devel mailing list 389-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: To semi-rolling or not to semi-rolling, that is the question...

Doug Ledford wrote: > and in those days Fedora Core did in fact have the more conservative > update style as a general rule. Oh really? http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/announce/2005-December/thread.html#1678 | Fedora Core 4 Update: arts-1.5.0-0.1.fc4 Than Ngo | Fedora Core 4 Update:

Re: Limited options in bugzilla

On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 03:39:00PM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > On Fri, 5 Mar 2010 17:35:55 +0300 > Tareq Al Jurf wrote: > > > So what should i do, fas is registered to my gmail, while bugzilla is > > registered to @fedoraproject.org > > i saw some other guys which have their bugzilla registered t

[389-devel] Please review: cleanup build warnings

>From 59a11fbc168b52036ebadb8c0df017cc5b09fe67 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Rich Megginson Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 15:55:53 -0700 Subject: [PATCH] cleanup build warnings This patch cleans up various build warnings found by compiling the code with -Wall on RHEL5. --- ldap/servers/plugins/acl/ac

Re: Refining the update queues/process [Was: Worthless updates]

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 N>1 testers

Re: Refining the update queues/process [Was: Worthless updates]

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 e

Re: Limited options in bugzilla

On Fri, 5 Mar 2010 17:35:55 +0300 Tareq Al Jurf wrote: > So what should i do, fas is registered to my gmail, while bugzilla is > registered to @fedoraproject.org > i saw some other guys which have their bugzilla registered to their @ > fedoraproject.org without having problems I think a manual m

Re: Push scripts, mash (was: Re: FESCo wants to ban direct stable pushes in Bodhi (urgent call for feedback))

Bill Nottingham wrote: > Off the top of my head, it would break the install DVD usage case The install DVD wouldn't have 32-bit baggage. So what? It's not installed by default anyway. (At least the live images don't contain ANY multilib stuff. I'm not sure what the DVD does these days.) > and t

Re: Speedup the availability of updates (was: Re: Push scripts, mash) pushes in Bodhi (urgent call for feedback))

On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 12:49:09PM -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote: > Till Maas (opensou...@till.name) said: > > > It seems to be missing something - it says 'all rpms that are not included > > > in the prior metadata will be deleted', but there's nothing in that > > > proposal > > > as written that

Re: To semi-rolling or not to semi-rolling, that is the question...

On 03/05/2010 03:58 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Doug Ledford wrote: >> It comes with less extra work than doing two update streams. Face it, >> there is *no* solution to this problem that both solves the issue for >> both parties involved and does not include at least *some* extra work >> for you. >

Re: Provide more testing feedback (was: Re: Refining the update queues/process)

On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 10:21:37PM +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote: > With defaults (no command-line args), it here prompted me to enter > the FAS password for "localhost". I had to use --fas-username=... These are the two commands that are used to get the username, what do they return for you? py

Re: Provide more testing feedback (was: Re: Refining the update queues/process)

On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 22:21 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote: > Interesting script. Nice idea, Till! > > > Comment? -1/0/1 ->karma, other -> skip> 1 > > With defaults (no command-line args), it here prompted me to enter > the FAS password for "localhost". I had to use --fas-username=... >From a qui

Re: Refining the update queues/process [Was: Worthless updates]

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 e

Re: how to make things better(tm)

On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 10:27:53AM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote: > On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 13:07 -0500, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > > And since I was lost at the previous step, I wonder here what you think > > Thomas wants that's rather specialized. If you think it's "drink from the > > firehose" and tha

[Bug 555420] FTBFS perl-IO-Compress-Bzip2-2.005-6.fc12

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=555420 --- Comment #11 from Ville Skyttä 2010-03-05 16:22:02 EST --- (In reply to comment #9) > I wait with update because the latest

Re: Provide more testing feedback (was: Re: Refining the update queues/process)

Interesting script. Nice idea, Till! > Comment? -1/0/1 ->karma, other -> skip> 1 With defaults (no command-line args), it here prompted me to enter the FAS password for "localhost". I had to use --fas-username=... -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.or

Re: Fedora 13 Alpha Go/No-Go Meeting: 2010-03-04 @ 01:00 UTC Recap

On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 10:31 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Adam Williamson wrote: >> We have various different definitions of the Alpha, it seems. The >> working definition that QA / rel-eng have always worked on when deciding >> whether to ship it is, broadly, 'can you install it, boot it, get a >> n

Re: To semi-rolling or not to semi-rolling, that is the question...

On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 12:56:11 -0500, Doug wrote: > It seems obvious to me that even if > we made a policy that Fedora was primarily stable once released, that > there would always be exceptions to that rule and things that should be > updated more aggressively. So I would not advocate for any poli

Re: Refining the update queues/process [Was: Worthless updates]

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 talki

Re: To semi-rolling or not to semi-rolling, that is the question...

Doug Ledford wrote: > On 03/05/2010 04:49 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote: >> Yet it is the only solution which really satisfies both groups of people. > > You should always be more clear when writing emails such as this. The > "Yet it is" above is unclear. Are you referring to a stable rawhide, or > th

Re: how to make things better(tm)

Toshio Kuratomi (a.bad...@gmail.com) said: > > If we are going down the road of providing absolute-latest-versions on > > older releases, perhaps not pushing it to prior releases until it's > > actually been in wide use on the next release? So, you have, for example: > > > > - new version 4.6 > >

Re: how to make things better(tm)

On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 12:55:23PM -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote: > Orcan Ogetbil (oget.fed...@gmail.com) said: > > There is one more thing. Very important thing. We have been pushing > > KDE releases asap so far, and although it hurt me at times (at school > > and at work), I like it. I don't blam

Re: Speedup the availability of updates (was: Re: Push scripts, mash) pushes in Bodhi (urgent call for feedback))

On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 1:29 PM, Mike McGrath wrote: > On Fri, 5 Mar 2010, Bill Nottingham wrote: > >> Till Maas (opensou...@till.name) said: >> > I have some ideas to speedup the availability of updates. Are there any >> > reasons except that the tools to do this do not exist yet, to switch to >>

Re: Push scripts, mash (was: Re: FESCo wants to ban direct stable pushes in Bodhi (urgent call for feedback))

Kevin Kofler (kevin.kof...@chello.at) said: > > While that would make things simpler and shorter, I doubt it's really > > practical. Enough people use and want multilib that I don't think we can > > just unilaterally remove it. Moreover, the multilib portion of the compose > > isn't the primary ti

Re: F-13 Branched report: 20100305 changes

Jesse Keating (jkeat...@j2solutions.net) said: > On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 13:16 -0500, Adam Jackson wrote: > > On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 18:12 +, Branched Report wrote: > > > koan-2.0.3.1-1.fc13.noarch requires mkinitrd > > > > This should be blocked from composes already. What's the deal? > > I

Re: how to make things better(tm)

Bill Nottingham wrote: > If we are going down the road of providing absolute-latest-versions on > older releases, perhaps not pushing it to prior releases until it's > actually been in wide use on the next release? So, you have, for example: > > - new version 4.6 > -> push it to rawhide, get testi

Re: Proposal: move comps to fedorahosted git

Bill Nottingham (nott...@redhat.com) said: > I'd like to propose moving comps to fedorahosted git. > Why? Because CVS is a pain. > > I can work on fixing the automated releng tasks that use comps. > > What I'd like to know is if doing this at some point over the > next few weeks (say, post-Alpha

Re: To semi-rolling or not to semi-rolling, that is the question...

Am Freitag, den 05.03.2010, 12:56 -0500 schrieb Doug Ledford: > There should be room for human judgment to > play a role. One of the most sensible comments I read! Peter -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: how to make things better(tm)

On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 9:53 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 21:47 +0530, Rajeesh K Nambiar wrote: > >> > That's because you're misreading Rahul's claims. Rahul was replying to a >> > post which claimed Fedora has a 'policy' of being 'bleeding edge'. >> >> Uh, oh - it wasn't  a *

Re: Speedup the availability of updates (was: Re: Push scripts, mash) pushes in Bodhi (urgent call for feedback))

On Fri, 5 Mar 2010, Bill Nottingham wrote: > Till Maas (opensou...@till.name) said: > > I have some ideas to speedup the availability of updates. Are there any > > reasons except that the tools to do this do not exist yet, to switch to > > this? I created a wiki page for this: > > https://fedorapr

Re: Harmless KDE feature upgrades - yeah right

On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 19:17 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Mike McGrath wrote: > > > On Fri, 5 Mar 2010, Kevin Kofler wrote: > > > >> For all those who're claiming users don't want upgrades like KDE 4.4.0: > >> http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/users/2010-February/367266.html > >> http://lis

Re: Harmless KDE feature upgrades - yeah right

Once upon a time, Kevin Kofler said: > 1. Why shouldn't the burden of proof be on the side which wants to change > the status quo? You seem to be ignoring the fact that there are multiple status quos in Fedora. There is "more stable" (GNOME, Firefox for example) vs. "more rolling" (KDE). I per

Re: how to make things better(tm)

On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 13:07 -0500, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > And since I was lost at the previous step, I wonder here what you think > Thomas wants that's rather specialized. If you think it's "drink from the > firehose" and that == rawhide, I agree that that's specialized. If it's > semi-rolling

Re: F-13 Branched report: 20100305 changes

On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 13:16 -0500, Adam Jackson wrote: > On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 18:12 +, Branched Report wrote: > > koan-2.0.3.1-1.fc13.noarch requires mkinitrd > > This should be blocked from composes already. What's the deal? It is blocked, perhaps the block action took place after the

Re: Push scripts, mash (was: Re: FESCo wants to ban direct stable pushes in Bodhi (urgent call for feedback))

Bill Nottingham wrote: > The issue there is then you have to properly determine what packages > to remove from the repo (unless you just keep everything, which has its > own problems); in this case, recomputing actually makes the code simpler. Sure, it makes the code simpler, but a lot slower! Oft

Perl, Imap and Kerberos

Hi all, I am currently writing an IMAP client script in perl. Since this script will only be used in one single use case and the IMAP server supports Kerberos authentication, I thought it would be a good idea to use Mail::ImapClient together with Authen:SASL This works well until I want to real

[389-devel] Please review (take 2): [Bug 570667] MMR: simultaneous total updates on the masters cause deadlock and data loss

Subject: MMR: simultaneous total updates on the masters cause deadlock and data loss https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=570667 [Revised proposal] --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=398089) git patch file I revised the previous patch to allow sending simultaneous tota

Re: Harmless KDE feature upgrades - yeah right

Mike McGrath wrote: > On Fri, 5 Mar 2010, Kevin Kofler wrote: > >> For all those who're claiming users don't want upgrades like KDE 4.4.0: >> http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/users/2010-February/367266.html >> http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/kde/2010-March/006102.html >> > > Now

Re: F-13 Branched report: 20100305 changes

On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 18:12 +, Branched Report wrote: > koan-2.0.3.1-1.fc13.noarch requires mkinitrd This should be blocked from composes already. What's the deal? - ajax signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproje

Re: how to make things better(tm)

On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 7:07 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 05:10:41PM +, Andrew Haley wrote: >> On 03/05/2010 03:25 PM, Thomas Janssen wrote: >> > So i (and others who think like me), have no reason to use Fedora >> > over one of the other mainstream Distros if Fedora is

F-13 Branched report: 20100305 changes

Compose started at Fri Mar 5 09:15:06 UTC 2010 Broken deps for i386 -- blahtexml-0.6-5.fc12.i686 requires libxerces-c.so.28 doodle-0.6.7-5.fc12.i686 requires libextractor.so.1 easystroke-0.5.2-1.fc13.i686 requires lib

Re: how to make things better(tm)

Adam Williamson wrote: > On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 11:25 +0100, Thomas Janssen wrote: >> The nepomuk problem some face is something that falls under, damn, >> that shouldn't happen, but sh!t happens. I saw a lot more and even >> terrible stuff happen in Fedora. > > So first you claim there's no regre

Re: how to make things better(tm)

On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 05:10:41PM +, Andrew Haley wrote: > On 03/05/2010 03:25 PM, Thomas Janssen wrote: > > > > Well, no. It wouldn't be a very hot leading distro. It would be > > nothing more than any other distro with the same release-cycle. > > Assuming that other distros were packaging

rpms/perl-DBIx-Class/devel perl-DBIx-Class.spec,1.22,1.23

Author: kasal Update of /cvs/pkgs/rpms/perl-DBIx-Class/devel In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv27846 Modified Files: perl-DBIx-Class.spec Log Message: - filter also requires for "hidden" package declarations Index: perl-DBIx-Class.spec ===

Re: how to make things better(tm)

On 03/05/2010 09:53 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > > Uh, what? How does what you said relate to what I said in any way? > > Rahul wasn't claiming that Fedora has a strict conservative update > policy. He was pointing out that Fedora does *not* have a strict > bleeding-edge policy. Wherein is that 'ur

Re: To semi-rolling or not to semi-rolling, that is the question...

On 03/05/2010 02:52 AM, Hans de Goede wrote: > One size does still not fit all, although this is a great idea for > most packages in Fedora for packages in certain niches this is a bad idea. > > I've said this before (and got 0 response), I believe there should > be some divide made between core pa

Re: how to make things better(tm)

Orcan Ogetbil (oget.fed...@gmail.com) said: > There is one more thing. Very important thing. We have been pushing > KDE releases asap so far, and although it hurt me at times (at school > and at work), I like it. I don't blame people who don't. Here is the > thing: The bugs need to be reported mos

Re: To semi-rolling or not to semi-rolling, that is the question...

On 03/05/2010 04:49 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Doug Ledford wrote: >> So, I'm going to reiterate my policy suggestion: >> >> Make Fedora releases (all of them) stable in nature, not semi-rolling. >> Make rawhide consumable as a semi-rolling release itself. > > And let me reiterate my objections, be

Re: Speedup the availability of updates (was: Re: Push scripts, mash) pushes in Bodhi (urgent call for feedback))

Till Maas (opensou...@till.name) said: > > It seems to be missing something - it says 'all rpms that are not included > > in the prior metadata will be deleted', but there's nothing in that proposal > > as written that will cause rpms to fall out of the metadata. > > It was probably to unclear. T

Re: Harmless KDE feature upgrades - yeah right

Petrus de Calguarium wrote: > As I had expected, breaking up the monolithic > packages into individual packages is a whole lot > of unnecessary work. Better to provide releases > as they occur, than to waste time unnecessarily > breaking down the monolithic packages. To what > end and benefit? Who,

Re: Speedup the availability of updates (was: Re: Push scripts, mash) pushes in Bodhi (urgent call for feedback))

On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 12:23:17PM -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote: > Till Maas (opensou...@till.name) said: > > I have some ideas to speedup the availability of updates. Are there any > > reasons except that the tools to do this do not exist yet, to switch to > > this? I created a wiki page for this

Re: Refining the update queues/process [Was: Worthless updates]

On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 18:26 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote: > > Nothing like that. It just frustrates me when people don't debate > > correctly. > > Then consider stopping to send further replies. You -- and some other > participants in these threads -- pipe out way too many replies in > quick suc

Re: To semi-rolling or not to semi-rolling, that is the question...

On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 08:52:56AM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote: > > Make rawhide consumable as a semi-rolling release itself. > > We already have this it is called early branching of the next release. I > would fully agree with you if it were not for the early branching > feature, which means we ef

Re: Refining the update queues/process [Was: Worthless updates]

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 ga

Re: Speedup the availability of updates (was: Re: Push scripts, mash) pushes in Bodhi (urgent call for feedback))

Till Maas (opensou...@till.name) said: > I have some ideas to speedup the availability of updates. Are there any > reasons except that the tools to do this do not exist yet, to switch to > this? I created a wiki page for this: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Till/update_availability_speedup_

Re: Push scripts, mash (was: Re: FESCo wants to ban direct stable pushes in Bodhi (urgent call for feedback))

On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 11:03 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: > > It was claimed that recomputing is necessary for some obscure multilib > corner cases. Let me suggest a radical solution for that: drop multilib > repos! If users really want 32-bit packages, they should enable the 32-bit > repo. Yes, t

Re: Refining the update queues/process [Was: Worthless updates]

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 l

Re: how to make things better(tm)

On 03/05/2010 03:25 PM, Thomas Janssen wrote: > On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 2:57 PM, Andrew Haley wrote: >> On 03/05/2010 10:25 AM, Thomas Janssen wrote: >> >>> I can see the need and agree that maybe not every big push needs to go >>> to N-1 releases. But not pushing 4.x.x relases to the currently >>>

Re: Push scripts, mash (was: Re: FESCo wants to ban direct stable pushes in Bodhi (urgent call for feedback))

Kevin Kofler (kevin.kof...@chello.at) said: > > So what? That's not twice as much as FE6, which would not have taken > > several hours to push into such a repo. Not even when running repoclosure > > on the needsign repo prior to pushing and when updating repoview pages > > afterwards. Simply becau

Re: Refining the update queues/process [Was: Worthless updates]

On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 08:19:25 -0800, Adam wrote: > 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 nega

Re: how to make things better(tm)

On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 17:40 +0100, Thomas Janssen wrote: > There are regressions. But not just in KDE. But interesting that so > much people cry about KDE only. I agree with that, and I said so earlier in the thread... > And Yes, it's always bad if terrible stuff happens. But you cant > reduce *

Re: how to make things better(tm)

On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 5:22 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 11:25 +0100, Thomas Janssen wrote: > >> I read about regressions all the time in KDE releases, over and over >> again. What's a regression you Rahul have faced and can you provide a >> BZ as well? > > (snip) > >> The ne

Re: how to make things better(tm)

On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 21:47 +0530, Rajeesh K Nambiar wrote: > > That's because you're misreading Rahul's claims. Rahul was replying to a > > post which claimed Fedora has a 'policy' of being 'bleeding edge'. > > Uh, oh - it wasn't a *claim*. Its just the popular saying, urban > myth, a general f

Re: how to make things better(tm)

On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 11:25 +0100, Thomas Janssen wrote: > I read about regressions all the time in KDE releases, over and over > again. What's a regression you Rahul have faced and can you provide a > BZ as well? (snip) > The nepomuk problem some face is something that falls under, damn, > that

Re: Refining the update queues/process [Was: Worthless updates]

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

Re: how to make things better(tm)

* Thomas Janssen [05/03/2010 17:03] : > > If you ask me, i say, have a face, have a character and offer > something the others dont. Fedora is exactly that right now. We're left with the problem that what Fedora is right now isn't working (massive amounts of updates that our users have to download

Re: how to make things better(tm)

On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 9:19 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 11:15 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: >> Rahul Sundaram wrote: >> > We have a written down policy that specifically recommends that our >> > maintainers consider the issue of regressions seriously and not push >> > every ups

Re: To semi-rolling or not to semi-rolling, that is the question...

On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 11:30 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > > Le Jeu 4 mars 2010 23:09, Till Maas a écrit : > > > And they must pass all AutoQA tests, which is not a big issue currently, > > but will be if AutoQA becomes what I would like it to be. > > People seem to assume AutoQA is going to be

Re: how to make things better(tm)

2010/3/5 Adam Williamson : > On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 11:15 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: >> Rahul Sundaram wrote: >> > We have a written down policy that specifically recommends that our >> > maintainers consider the issue of regressions seriously and not push >> > every upstream release into the update

Re: Upcoming Bugzilla Changes

On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 13:27 +0100, Till Maas wrote: > Especially it needs to be made sure that only bugs created prior to > adding "F13" to RedHat Bugzilla or the branching of F13, depending on > what happened later, are touched by the "Rawhide bug rebase". We already did that, though tk009 forgo

Re: Upcoming Bugzilla Changes

On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 03:42:57PM +0100, Till Maas wrote: > On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 03:11:23PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: > > Till Maas wrote: > > > > Especially it needs to be made sure that only bugs created prior to > > > adding "F13" to RedHat Bugzilla or the branching of F13, depending on >

Re: how to make things better(tm)

On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 11:15 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Rahul Sundaram wrote: > > We have a written down policy that specifically recommends that our > > maintainers consider the issue of regressions seriously and not push > > every upstream release into the updates repository > > > > http://fedo

Re: Fedora 13 Alpha Go/No-Go Meeting: 2010-03-04 @ 01:00 UTC Recap

On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 05:32 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Adam Williamson wrote: > > On Thu, 2010-03-04 at 15:53 -0500, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > >> We should change or refine the Freeze Policy page then. Having different > >> definitions of what is required for alpha to go out and what can go in >

Re: how to make things better(tm)

I wrote: > 4.4.1 is not built yet. It will probably be put into kde-redhat testing in > addition to the official updates-testing (the exact same binary packages) > for those who don't want to easily test it without pulling in all of > updates-testing. Uh, I butchered that sentence. I mean: 4.4.1 i

Re: Fedora 13 Alpha Go/No-Go Meeting: 2010-03-04 @ 01:00 UTC Recap

On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 05:31 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Adam Williamson wrote: > > We have various different definitions of the Alpha, it seems. The > > working definition that QA / rel-eng have always worked on when deciding > > whether to ship it is, broadly, 'can you install it, boot it, get a

Re: how to make things better(tm)

On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 2:57 PM, Andrew Haley wrote: > On 03/05/2010 10:25 AM, Thomas Janssen wrote: > >> I can see the need and agree that maybe not every big push needs to go >> to N-1 releases. But not pushing 4.x.x relases to the currently >> "stable" N release is just plain wrong. That kills w

Re: Harmless KDE feature upgrades - yeah right

On Fri, 5 Mar 2010, Kevin Kofler wrote: > For all those who're claiming users don't want upgrades like KDE 4.4.0: > http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/users/2010-February/367266.html > http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/kde/2010-March/006102.html > Now, lets see you take the leap in l

Re: VCS key in spec files and some scripts

On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 09:53:59AM -0500, Colin Walters wrote: > On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 6:05 AM, Till Maas wrote: > > Also a link to an example spec would be helpful. > > For just the #VCS key? Let me instead write up a formal proposal: It helps to have something that is supposed to work to ge

Re: VCS key in spec files and some scripts

On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 6:05 AM, Till Maas wrote: > > Here is my first feature request: please make the fedora buildsys > specific items optional, e.g. if there is no sources file, then just > skip all the CVS etc. stuff, but only fetch the tarball and update the > spec. This would make it possible

Re: how to make things better(tm)

On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 7:37 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Rajeesh K Nambiar wrote: >> I must be looking at the wrong places then... I could find no 4.4+ >> RPMs either in one of the mirrors: >> http://apt.de.kde-redhat.org/kde-redhat/fedora/12/i386/unstable/RPMS/ > > 4.4.0 is already an official updat

Re: Upcoming Bugzilla Changes

On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 03:11:23PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Till Maas wrote: > > Especially it needs to be made sure that only bugs created prior to > > adding "F13" to RedHat Bugzilla or the branching of F13, depending on > > what happened later, are touched by the "Rawhide bug rebase". > >

Re: Harmless KDE feature upgrades - yeah right

For all those who're claiming users don't want upgrades like KDE 4.4.0: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/users/2010-February/367266.html http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/kde/2010-March/006102.html Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://ad

Re: Limited options in bugzilla

>On 5 March 2010 13:51, Tareq Al Jurf wrote: >>* When i'm using bugzilla, i've noticed that i have some limited options in *>>* flags *>*> fedora-review: i have only a "?", i dont have any "+" *>*> fedora-cvs: i can't change it, see the link below. *>>* *>*> my info: *>*> taljurf: Approved Groups:

Re: Speedup the availability of updates (was: Re: Push scripts, mash) pushes in Bodhi (urgent call for feedback))

Seth Vidal wrote: > If only 3 of those 5 make it through updates-testing into updates, then > you have to figure out if the other 3 actually need the versions of the > other 2 or if they can work with what's already available in GA or > updates. How's that relevant to his proposal? Or more precise

Re: Upcoming Bugzilla Changes

Till Maas wrote: > Before you do anything that is described on that wiki page, it needs to > be updated to match the current no frozen rawhide situation. Since it > requires FESCo approval, targeting 2010-03-09 seems to be kind of > unrealistic. Quite the opposite, the switchover needs to happen A

Re: how to make things better(tm)

Rajeesh K Nambiar wrote: > I must be looking at the wrong places then... I could find no 4.4+ > RPMs either in one of the mirrors: > http://apt.de.kde-redhat.org/kde-redhat/fedora/12/i386/unstable/RPMS/ 4.4.0 is already an official update, why would kde-redhat carry it? 4.4.1 is not built yet. It

Re: Fedora 13 Alpha Go/No-Go Meeting: 2010-03-04 @ 01:00 UTC Recap

James Laska wrote: > Quality isn't something you staff and hope they cover all your testing > needs. Quality practices are expected of everyone at all stages of the > process. In the QA team, we work to provide a framework and guidelines > so people interested in making a difference have an oppor

Re: how to make things better(tm)

On 03/05/2010 10:25 AM, Thomas Janssen wrote: > I can see the need and agree that maybe not every big push needs to go > to N-1 releases. But not pushing 4.x.x relases to the currently > "stable" N release is just plain wrong. That kills what Fedora stands > for out there in the wild. To be a lead

  1   2   >