On Sun, 21 Nov 2010 12:42:00 +0100
Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Nov 2010 15:35:43 -0700, Kevin wrote:
>
> > Other concrete ideas?
>
> As a beginning, let's limit this thread to at most one message per
> person per day.
That would be lovely. I guess this would be my sunday message. ;)
On 11/21/2010 17:51, Björn Persson wrote:
> Andre Robatino wrote:
>> My feeling is that it would be better for Bodhi to always require a login.
>> Even Bugzilla does that. I suspect that a lot of people who give anonymous
>> karma don't realize that it doesn't count, and would have created an
>> ac
On Mon, 22 Nov 2010 00:32:38 +0100, Matt McCutchen wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-11-20 at 23:09 +0100, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
> > One has to give up on backporting new fixes to ever get any delivered.
>
> That's not true. You can continue committing fixes and running builds
> in Koji; just don't submit an
On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 10:35:31 +0100,
Till Maas wrote:
>
> IMHO it is pretty unlikely that people use updates-testing but do not
> care about posting feedback to Bodhi.
I usually notice only when something breaks, not when it keeps working.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.or
On Sun, 2010-11-21 at 23:04 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> In short: Want higher-quality updates for previous releases? Then push
> version upgrades wherever possible (even and especially for libraries, as
> long as they're ABI-compatible or can be group-pushed with a small set of
> rebuilt rever
Andre Robatino wrote:
> My feeling is that it would be better for Bodhi to always require a login.
> Even Bugzilla does that. I suspect that a lot of people who give anonymous
> karma don't realize that it doesn't count, and would have created an
> account if they did. And using an account allows p
On Sat, 2010-11-20 at 23:09 +0100, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
> Oh, I forgot, Fedora no longer delivers the fix in a day but ... even not in
> a week. Because I usually create new build during the updates-testing week so
> the days start to count again.
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/g
David Nalley wrote:
> I think this is an interesting idea, but I'll also say I think it can
> be made simpler. Why not just hold package maintainers accountable
> period. Make them accountable to FESCo (which in theory they are to
> begin with) If I, as a package maintainer continuously want to 'pu
I wrote:
> Adam Williamson wrote:
>> How do you expect to be able to maintain an entire desktop environment
>> on a distribution you don't even have installed? I have some sympathy
>> for the 'fifty people said it works on F14, it probably works on F12
>> too' argument, but for a *small, leaf* pac
On 11/21/10 11:00 AM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> meantime resets the time that a package
> needs to wait to get to stable. Could bodhi be changed to let multiple
> packages be in the testing repository at one time and only obsolete them
> when a newer package enters the stable repo? That woul
Adam Williamson wrote:
> How do you expect to be able to maintain an entire desktop environment
> on a distribution you don't even have installed? I have some sympathy
> for the 'fifty people said it works on F14, it probably works on F12
> too' argument, but for a *small, leaf* package, not for an
Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> packages. Perhaps this could be longer than for non-critpath. The big
> issue that people have observed with depending on timeouts, though, is
> that pushing new updates in the meantime resets the time that a package
> needs to wait to get to stable. Could bodhi
On Sunday 21 November 2010, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On 11/20/10 6:54 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > The breakage is supposed to be noticed and fixed during the extensive
> > testing we do for that kind of updates. We tested 4.5.x for about half a
> > year in total: ~3 months of prerelease testing in kd
On 11/20/10 6:54 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> The breakage is supposed to be noticed and fixed during the extensive
> testing we do for that kind of updates. We tested 4.5.x for about half a
> year in total: ~3 months of prerelease testing in kde-redhat unstable, ~2
> months of 4.5.x testing in kde
On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 5:09 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-11-20 at 14:49 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>> On Fri, 19 Nov 2010 22:04:24 -0800
>> Adam Williamson wrote:
>>
>> ...snip...
>>
>> > > https://fedorahosted.org/bodhi/ticket/277
>> >
>> > hum, that wasn't well publicised, and I wa
On Sun, 2010-11-21 at 11:22 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Till Maas wrote:
> > I did not write that testing is a waste of time. But begging to get
> > updates tested is. Also it is imho for each maintainer to maintain lots
> > of test machines (e.g. there are four Fedora "releases": F12, F13, F14
>
On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 05:41:35PM +, Andre Robatino wrote:
> The recent change in xz compression settings caused md5 mismatch errors in
> rebuilding RPMs (since applydeltarpm doesn't know the difference between the
> old
> and new compression). This resulted in significant work for releng. To
Hi,
After getting latest updates (glibc and eclise), I started getting
reproducible Eclipse out of memory errors (happens during AppEngine
deploys). Haven't done any other changes to my env besides yum update.
Should I file a bug?
!ENTRY org.eclipse.ui 4 4 2010-11-20 15:47:18.005
!MESSAGE An inte
On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 02:09:47PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-11-20 at 14:49 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > On Fri, 19 Nov 2010 22:04:24 -0800
> > Adam Williamson wrote:
> >
> > ...snip...
> >
> > > > https://fedorahosted.org/bodhi/ticket/277
> > >
> > > hum, that wasn't well p
The recent change in xz compression settings caused md5 mismatch errors in
rebuilding RPMs (since applydeltarpm doesn't know the difference between the old
and new compression). This resulted in significant work for releng. To avoid
this issue in the future, what about using different names and pac
Toshio Kuratomi gmail.com> writes:
> Lack of manpower ideas:
>
> * Allow anonymous karma to count. Anonymous karma would allow more people
> who report bugs in bugzilla to add karma in bodhi without having to get
> a second account in the Fedora Account System. For critpath packages,
> w
On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 03:35:43PM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> ok, I dug through the devel list for the last month or two and wrote
> down all the various ideas folks have come up with to change/improve
> things.
>
> Here (in no particular order) are the ideas and some notes from me on
> how we c
On Sun, 2010-11-21 at 12:42 -0500, David Nalley wrote:
> I am curious to know a few things?
>
> How many updates submitted to bodhi since the policy has been in place?
> How many updates received any feedback?
> How many updates received only neutral or negative feedback?
> How many updates had a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 11/21/2010 10:50 AM, Brian Pepple wrote:
> On Sun, 2010-11-21 at 09:51 -0500, Eric "Sparks" Christensen wrote:
>> Why would it magically show up in F-15 and F-14 but not F-13 and EL-6?
>
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/ChangeInImplicitDSOL
On Sun, 2010-11-21 at 09:51 -0500, Eric "Sparks" Christensen wrote:
> Why would it magically show up in F-15 and F-14 but not F-13 and EL-6?
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/ChangeInImplicitDSOLinking
Later,
/B
--
Brian Pepple
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Bpepple
gpg --keyserver p
Ralf Ertzinger wrote:
> Hi.
>
> On Sun, 21 Nov 2010 09:26:58 +0100, Roberto Ragusa wrote
>
>> You still need a timeout to avoid waiting for ever for the root
>> filesystem to appear when one of the PV has been disconnected from
>> the system.
>
> If you cannot assemble the root file system, what
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 11/21/2010 02:28 AM, Mamoru Tasaka wrote:
> Eric "Sparks" Christensen wrote, at 11/21/2010 01:47 PM +9:00:
>> I'm working on updating the GPredict package for F13, F14, F15, and EL6.
>> The package builds fine on F14 and F15 but on F13 it fails wi
Hi.
On Sun, 21 Nov 2010 09:26:58 +0100, Roberto Ragusa wrote
> You still need a timeout to avoid waiting for ever for the root
> filesystem to appear when one of the PV has been disconnected from
> the system.
If you cannot assemble the root file system, what is init supposed to
do instead of wa
Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Richard Zidlicky wrote:
>> However for some of the reports it is only the matter of someone looking
>> at them as they contain the obvious solution to the problem.
>>
>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=595165
>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=582013
>
On Sat, 20 Nov 2010 15:35:43 -0700, Kevin wrote:
> Other concrete ideas?
As a beginning, let's limit this thread to at most one message per person
per day.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
2010/11/21 Ville Skyttä :
> On Sunday 21 November 2010, Michał Piotrowski wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I would like to help with scripts conversion. IMO the conversion
>> action should be coordinated.
>>
>> Comments, thoughts?
>
> Sure. But just in case by coordination you happen imply that a small team of
Compose started at Sun Nov 21 08:15:03 UTC 2010
Broken deps for x86_64
--
beagle-0.3.9-19.fc14.x86_64 requires libmono.so.0()(64bit)
beagle-0.3.9-19.fc14.x86_64 requires libmono.so.0(VER_1)(64bit)
bognor-regis-0.6.11-1
On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 4:19 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Adam Williamson wrote:
>> I don't disagree with anything you say, but the question of what's more
>> important than testing an update is key. If an update's worth doing,
>> it's worth testing. This is pretty simple, and amply demonstrated by
>
Till Maas wrote:
> All of this could be combined. E.g. packages with enough testers get
> test cases and need to fulfill stronger criteria. Packages with not so
> many testers get test cases and only need to fulfil that similar
> updates need to receive good karma on one Fedora release.
>
> Off co
Till Maas wrote:
> I did not write that testing is a waste of time. But begging to get
> updates tested is. Also it is imho for each maintainer to maintain lots
> of test machines (e.g. there are four Fedora "releases": F12, F13, F14
> and Rawhide and two primary archs, making it 8 machines) even i
On Sunday 21 November 2010, Michał Piotrowski wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I would like to help with scripts conversion. IMO the conversion
> action should be coordinated.
>
> Comments, thoughts?
Sure. But just in case by coordination you happen imply that a small team of
volunteers would be doing the gru
On Sunday 21 November 2010, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Ville Skyttä wrote:
> > It probably did, and because the above is related to config files,
> > leaving behind *.rpmorig is quite appropriate IMO. But leaving such
> > cruft behind is not that fine for non-config files.
>
> Well, instead of a mv to
On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 03:35:43PM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> * require testing only for packages where people have signed up to be testers
>
> Packages without 'official' testers could bypass testing or have some lower
> karma
> requirement. We would need for this a list of packages that have
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 11:42:19AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> it's worth noting that part of the point of the 7-day clause is to cover
> 'invisible testing'; even if people aren't posting feedback to Bodhi,
> it's likely that if the update actually is broken, we will find out one
> way or ano
On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 08:44:43AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-11-20 at 11:23 +0100, Till Maas wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 10:18:38PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> >
> > > place. The idea was never that some magic independent group of testers
> > > would spend the rest of
Alasdair G Kergon wrote:
> An example of the way I see it working is like this:
> Say you have a Volume Group VG1 across two PVs, PV1 and PV2, containing
> Logical
> Volume LV1 containing the root filesystem.
> You have a trigger rule saying "When you see the whole of VG1, activate LV1
> inside it
41 matches
Mail list logo
