Re: YAST for Fedora?

> > "so we don't need" What is his mean about "WE" ?! > I believe "WE" should be read as the Community, and the Community includes a lot of different type of users. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email

Self Introduction: Clement Verna

Hello all, I have been contributing to Fedora by helping the infrastructure team mostly on development tasks ( pagure, bodhi, pagure-importer, etc). I recently volunteer to give some love to fedora-packages[0]. That brings me here since I would like to move fedora-packages from rhel6 to

Re: Self Introduction: Clement Verna

Hi Athos, Thanks for the welcome and the review comments I will modify my spec file to match the python packaging guidelines. I will look for some packages to review. Thanks again. Clement ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To

Re: Missing font information at wiki

Hi, fedora-packages is already using the appdata to get the icons of the applications. The indexing of the search database is fetching an xml file [1] that contains the appdata but I am not sure how this file is actually produced. [1] :

Re: [atomic-devel] Starting a Container SIG

> > development within > > Fedora Workstation. > > > > I can contribute a certain familiarity with OCI images, OSBS, the image > > registry, etc. > > > > Owen > > > > On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 1:09 PM, Clement Verna > > wrote: > &g

Re: Rust SIG

On Mon, 30 Jul 2018 at 17:45, Brian (bex) Exelbierd wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 2:31 PM, Martin Sehnoutka wrote: >> >> Do you plan any hackfest during Flock? > > > We are booked out for schedule hacks during Flock, however there is usually > some space on the edges for impromptu

Re: [atomic-devel] [CoreOS] Re: Starting a Container SIG

des some initial help that > shouldn't be underestimated. > I added https://discussion.fedoraproject.org/c/containers to the wiki page. I am happy to use it instead of the mailing list :) > On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 10:59 AM, Matthew Miller > wrote: >> >> On Wed, Jul 25, 2018

Fwd: fedora-tagger sunset - week post F29 beta freeze

Dear all, The Fedora Infrastructure is running the fedora-tagger [0] service, however it gets little usage and also has no one really maintaining it or fixing issues with it. Earlier this year [1] we have tried to support community members who expressed their interests in maintaining this

Re: [atomic-devel] [CoreOS] Re: Re: Starting a Container SIG

Dear all, I have scheduled our first IRC meeting for this week Thursday (August 23, 2018 - 15:00 UTC) on #fedora-containers (freenode) [0]. The agenda for this meeting is : - everyone interested in the SIG to introduce themselves - Go through some of the discussion we had during flock. -

Re: [atomic-devel] [CoreOS] Re: Re: Starting a Container SIG

On Sat, 25 Aug 2018 at 15:29, Dusty Mabe wrote: > > > On 08/24/2018 10:24 AM, Brian Clark wrote: > > Are there any minutes from this meeting? > > Here ya go: > > > https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-containers/2018-08-23/fedora_container_sig_kickoff.2018-08-23-15.00.html We also have a

Starting a Container SIG

Greeting all, The container effort in Fedora has until now been looked after by the Atomic WG, since this Working Group is now going to focus mostly on Fedora CoreOS, I propose to create a new container SIG to regroup people interested in the maintenance of application containers in Fedora. This

Re: --module-name or some other name?

On 14 March 2018 at 15:09, Randy Barlow wrote: > On 03/14/2018 08:56 AM, Chenxiong Qi wrote: >> * --repository-name or --package-name, what do you think which one is >> proper for fedpkg? > > Either of these will do. I also like pingou's --name suggestion, with a >

Re: Anyone interested in Testing the wireframes of the Fedora Community App?

On 14 April 2018 at 00:08, Abhishek Sharma wrote: > Sent you the invite, Umar. Thanks! > > Will love to see more participation from the community :-) > > On Sat, Apr 14, 2018 at 3:29 AM, Umar Parooq > wrote: >> >> I am in. >> >> On Fri, Apr 13,

fedora-tagger and statscache sunset

Dear all, As previously announced [0][1] fedora-tagger and statscache will be retired next Tuesday Oct 02 2018 at 21.00 UTC. Thanks [0] - https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/infrastruct...@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/RY23KIVRXFVXMTGMXNDV4D7NXM2V2NUJ/ [1] -

Re: Container updates available in bodhi

> On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 09:05:44PM +0100, Clement Verna wrote: > > This is a great news! > > Just to clarify for those like me who aren't playing with containers much. > What happened before? There was no updates of containers at all? > Assuming there was update, is t

Re: Container updates available in bodhi

On Thu, 15 Nov 2018 at 13:55, Petr Pisar wrote: > On 2018-11-14, Clement Verna wrote: > > After a successful OSBS build, a bodhi update can be created. Fedpkg does > > not yet support creating updates for containers [0], so you have to > either > > use bodhi web UI or th

Container updates available in bodhi

Dear all, It is now possible to use bodhi to release a new container build. Currently it is following the same flow as packages. After a successful OSBS build, a bodhi update can be created. Fedpkg does not yet support creating updates for containers [0], so you have to either use bodhi web UI

Re: Proposal: Add release announcement post to Go/No-Go criteria

On Wed, 26 Sep 2018 at 14:44, Brian (bex) Exelbierd wrote: > > > On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 11:25 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote: > >> On 09/25/2018 01:35 PM, Ben Cotton wrote: >> > With today's Beta release, the release announcement post for Fedora >> > Magazine was not ready. As a result, the announcement

Proposal : Use OSBS to build the fedora container base image

Hi all, I would like to get feedbacks on the following proposal. Use OSBS to build the fedora container base image, indeed OSBS has the capability to build a base container image using a kickstart file. To do this OSBS needs a Dockerfile, a kickstart file and an image-build.conf file stored in

Re: Container updates available in bodhi

On Wed, 21 Nov 2018 at 16:37, Ken Dreyer wrote: > On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 6:09 AM Clement Verna > wrote: > > > > On Thu, 15 Nov 2018 at 13:55, Petr Pisar wrote: > >> And unrelated question: The koji build NVR does not contain dist-git > >> name spac

Re: Proposal: Move to an annual platform release starting at F30

On Tue, 27 Nov 2018 at 17:23, Owen Taylor wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 11:05 AM Josh Boyer wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 10:13 AM Owen Taylor wrote: > > > But for the next thousand or so Fedora developers, the release cycle > > > is actually not a big deal - not something that takes

Re: f28/f29 container composes failure since a while, is it already tracked by an issue ?

On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 at 11:31, Normand wrote: > > > In fedora registry (1) we have f30/rawhide containers updated from last > compose (2) >but f28 last dated 20181007 >but f29 last dated 20190218 >Probably related to the DOOMED status reported in Container compose > (3) Where f28/f29

Re: Where are armv7hl, i686 and ppc64le Container tar.xz files?

On Tue, 7 May 2019 at 23:46, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > On 5/6/19 11:57 AM, Jun Aruga wrote: > > Yes, Kevin. Thank you for the info. > > What I do not understand is below DockerHub has Feodra 30 ppc64le, > > Fedora 29 armhfp that Fedora Project did not release. > > > >

Re: Fedora Updates issues

Hi On Sat, Aug 3, 2019, 21:31 Jerry James wrote: > I just visited https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/ to check on my updates > in testing. I clicked on my profile. The section named "jjames's > latest updates" used to show me the most recent few updates I have > submitted for stable branches.

Re: Join the new Minimization Team

On Sat, 3 Aug 2019 at 20:34, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 01, 2019 at 10:25:55AM +0200, Adam Samalik wrote: > > I've already done some experiments with that. I used multi-stage builds > > with podman, but it's the same in principle. And yes, the sizes are > > smaller. What

Re: looking to orphan docker-distribution..

On Sat, Aug 17, 2019, 02:08 Lokesh Mandvekar wrote: > I'm looking to give up ownership of the docker-distribution package. > Current co-maintainers aren't keen on owning it either, but I heard > registry.fp.o depends on it. > Yes we use it for our registry. Hopefully one day will be able to

Re: when will bodhi (updates) recognize fc31/f31 updates

On Thu, 15 Aug 2019 at 22:33, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > On 8/15/19 7:44 AM, Alexander Bokovoy wrote: > > On to, 15 elo 2019, Kaleb Keithley wrote: > >> On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 10:21 AM Alexander Bokovoy > >> wrote: > >> > >>> On to, 15 elo 2019, Kaleb Keithley wrote: > >>> >I've tried to submit a

Re: Sunset of infinote (Gobby) service

On 8/1/19 3:34 AM, Clement Verna wrote: > > Dear all, > > > > The Fedora Infrastructure is planning to retire the infinote [0] > > service. This service allows text collaboration using the Gobby > > client[1] and was mainly used by the Infrastructure team to coo

Re: Rawhide gating: What shell be done with failed updates?

On Tue, Aug 27, 2019, 15:35 Miro Hrončok wrote: > If updates in rawhide gating fail the tests, what is the procedure? Should > they > be unpuhsed, or left to rot forever? > There are a few options here, fix the package so that the tests pass, disable the tests, or waive the results. If none of

Re: Sunset of infinote (Gobby) service

On Tue, 27 Aug 2019 at 16:32, Clement Verna wrote: > > > On Tue, 27 Aug 2019 at 16:30, Stephen John Smoogen > wrote: > >> On Tue, 27 Aug 2019 at 03:58, Clement Verna >> wrote: >> > >> > On 8/1/19 3:34 AM, Clement Verna wrote: >> >> &g

Re: Discussion around app retirements and categorizations by the CPE team

On Wed, 31 Jul 2019 at 09:17, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 01:13:50PM -0400, Tim Zabel wrote: > >Hello, > >I'm a little late to this conversation, but is fpaste in Category 4 due > > to > >the high legal costs, or because of a lack of a maintainer? > >It

Re: Join the new Minimization Team

On Sun, 4 Aug 2019 at 18:17, Peter Robinson wrote: > > >> On Sat, 3 Aug 2019 at 20:34, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek > >> wrote: > >> > > >> > On Thu, Aug 01, 2019 at 10:25:55AM +0200, Adam Samalik wrote: > >> > > I've already done some experiments with that. I used multi-stage builds > >> > >

Re: Join the new Minimization Team

On Mon, 5 Aug 2019 at 10:59, Alexander Bokovoy wrote: > > On ma, 05 elo 2019, Clement Verna wrote: > >On Sun, 4 Aug 2019 at 18:17, Peter Robinson wrote: > >> > >> >> On Sat, 3 Aug 2019 at 20:34, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek > >> >> wrote: >

Fwd: Sunset of infinote (Gobby) service

Dear all, The Fedora Infrastructure is planning to retire the infinote [0] service. This service allows text collaboration using the Gobby client[1] and was mainly used by the Infrastructure team to coordinate our weekly meeting and the mass update & reboot of the machines. The service will be

Re: Discussion around app retirements and categorizations by the CPE team

On Wed, 17 Jul 2019 at 20:10, Neal Gompa wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 1:22 PM Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > > > > > > > > On Wed, 17 Jul 2019 at 09:22, Neal Gompa wrote: > >> > >> On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 6:46 AM Pierre-Yves Chibon > >> wrote: > >> > > >> > >> There are two issues to

[Heads up] Fedora Container base image is getting smaller

Hi all, The Container SIG has been busy in the last few weeks working on getting the Fedora container base image smaller (It was growing over 300MB). While a few minor changes [0-1] have recently landed in the fedora:latest and fedora:rawhide images. Last couple days a bigger change [2] have

Re: [Heads up] Fedora Container base image is getting smaller

On Wed, 24 Jul 2019 at 16:58, Matthew Miller wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 07:09:24AM +0200, Clement Verna wrote: > > Last couple days a bigger change [2] have been introduced in the > > fedora:rawhide image. This change drops all the weak dependencies from > > the

Re: Update pushed to F31 updates-testing not happening ?

On Wed, 2 Oct 2019 at 12:49, Hans de Goede wrote: > Hi All, > > We currently have 61 updates pending for being pushed to > F31 updates-testing and no push seems to have happened for > aprox. 48 hours or so ? > This is https://github.com/fedora-infra/bodhi/issues/3471 biting us. I have removed

Re: Defining the future of the packager workflow in Fedora

On Wed, 2 Oct 2019 at 19:34, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Wed, Oct 02, 2019 at 05:31:56PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > > ○ Every changes to dist-git is done via pull-requests > > Erm, no thank you. Pull requests are a terrible workflow. > > It's definitely the winning workflow in the open

Re: Upgrading ODCS prod (hopefully) next week.

uild flatpak images and > therefore I presume the flatpak builds will fail during this upgrade. > > I will coordinate the upgrade with Clement Verna (OSBS), Owen Taylor > (flatpak) and Mikolaj Izdebski (fedora infra). In case you think you should > be included in discussions related to th

Bodhi Outage Ongoing - Deploying 5.0

Dear all, There is an outage on going, which may last up to 2 hours. Rawhide update will suffer a longer outage which will probably last until later today (15:00 UTC). I will send an update to the list once everything is back to normal. Apologies for not sending this notice earlier. To convert

Re: Bodhi Outage Ongoing - Deploying 5.0

On Tue, 12 Nov 2019 at 11:08, Miro Hrončok wrote: > On 12. 11. 19 10:45, Clement Verna wrote: > > We will be upgrading bodhi to its 5.0 release. This release comes in > with few UI > > changes but also task scheduling system (rabbitmq/celery based) allowing > to > >

Re: Regarding Adam Miller (maxamillion) packager status

On Tue, Dec 10, 2019, 21:49 Miro Hrončok wrote: > On 09. 12. 19 18:38, Adam Miller wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 11:15 AM Miro Hrončok > wrote: > >> > >> On 09. 12. 19 18:04, Richard Shaw wrote: > >>> I had a short email conversation with Adam and he doesn't have time to > maintain > >>>

Re: Bohdi / Create New Update - I miss the field Builds

On Thu, 5 Dec 2019 at 17:45, Martin Gansser wrote: > I mean this field [1] > > [1] https://martinkg.fedorapeople.org/ErrorReports/bohdi/bohdi.png Hi Martin, A new version of Bodhi was deployed yesterday. Can you clean your browser cache and reload the page ? And let us know if that helps :-)

Re: Defining the future of the packager workflow in Fedora

On Thu, Oct 3, 2019, 17:43 Jeremy Cline wrote: > On Wed, Oct 02, 2019 at 08:26:16PM +0200, Clement Verna wrote: > > On Wed, 2 Oct 2019 at 19:34, Matthew Miller > > wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Oct 02, 2019 at 05:31:56PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > >

Re: Fedora & Containers

On Tue, 25 Feb 2020 at 17:07, Michal Schorm wrote: > Hello, > > Will anybody be able to explain to me the current state of the > containers & containerization in Fedora, please? > Hi Michal, As you mention in the points below the current state of building containers in Fedora needs a lot of

State of FMN (FedMSG Notifications) and Replacement

Hi all, FMN (https://apps.fedoraproject.org/notifications) is currently one of the main blocking point for dropping fedmsg in favour of fedora-messaging. FMN is quite important to the community and the composition of Fedora because it gives emails and notifications on commits, composes, builds

Re: State of FMN (FedMSG Notifications) and Replacement

On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 at 09:17, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Wed, 2020-02-26 at 08:26 +0100, Clement Verna wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > FMN (https://apps.fedoraproject.org/notifications) is currently one of > the > > main blocking point for dropping fedmsg in favou

Re: State of FMN (FedMSG Notifications) and Replacement

On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 at 09:43, Fabio Valentini wrote: > On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 8:27 AM Clement Verna > wrote: > > > > Hi all, > > > > FMN (https://apps.fedoraproject.org/notifications) is currently one of > the main blocking point for dropping fedmsg in fa

Re: Build into < Rawhide side tag fails with "Package ... has already been built"

On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 at 16:17, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 08:50:08AM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 11:43:16AM -0800, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > > On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 07:50:05PM +0100, Clement Verna wrote: > > > >

Re: Build into < Rawhide side tag fails with "Package ... has already been built"

On Thu, 27 Feb 2020 at 14:14, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > Despite earlier concerns, this does in fact appear to all be working fine. > Yes requesting and building in the side tag should work just fine. > > There are now F32 builds going through for all OCaml packages in a > side tag, and when

Re: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog

On Wed, 29 Jan 2020 at 11:36, Iñaki Ucar wrote: > On Wed, 29 Jan 2020 at 00:08, Leigh Griffin wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jan 28, 2020, 22:06 Iñaki Ucar wrote: > >> > >> On Tue, 28 Jan 2020 at 20:58, Leigh Griffin > wrote: > >> > > >> > This thread is serving as a source of requirements (although

Re: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog

On Wed, Jan 29, 2020, 15:23 Julen Landa Alustiza wrote: > (snip) > > 20/1/29 14:49(e)an, Clement Verna igorleak idatzi zuen: > > To me that's the all point of this > > process, let's put down what we *really* *really* need and then look at > > the different opt

Re: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog

On Wed, 29 Jan 2020 at 16:18, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 03:56:08PM +0100, Clement Verna wrote: > >On Wed, Jan 29, 2020, 15:23 Julen Landa Alustiza > > wrote: > > > > (snip) > > > > 20/1/29 14:49(e

Re: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog

On Wed, 29 Jan 2020 at 18:26, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > On Wed, 29 Jan 2020 at 11:38, Clement Verna > wrote: > > > > > > > > On Wed, 29 Jan 2020 at 16:18, Pierre-Yves Chibon > wrote: > >> > > >> these heroics related to pagure? >

Re: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog

On Wed, 29 Jan 2020 at 16:18, Julen Landa Alustiza wrote: > > > 2020(e)ko urtarrilaren 29(a) 15:56:08 (CET)-(e)an, Clement Verna < > cve...@fedoraproject.org>-(e)k hau idatzi zuen: > >On Wed, Jan 29, 2020, 15:23 Julen Landa Alustiza > > > >wrote: >

Re: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog

On Wed, 29 Jan 2020 at 16:56, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Wed, 2020-01-29 at 15:56 +0100, Clement Verna wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 29, 2020, 15:23 Julen Landa Alustiza < > jla...@fedoraproject.org> > > wrote: > > > > > (snip) > > > > > &g

Re: Packages webapp status

On Fri, 7 Feb 2020 at 21:50, Richard Fearn wrote: > On Mon, 3 Feb 2020 at 17:03, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > > > Thats... much more harsh than I would agree with. I still use it and > > find some of its information helpfull. > > Sadly it does seem to have got a lot worse recently... I noticed last >

Re: Fedora review tickets tracker pages

On Tue, 4 Feb 2020 at 20:55, Mattia Verga via devel < devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote: > Il 04/02/20 10:29, Miroslav Suchý ha scritto: > > > > People are asking for this for years. No one ever had time to do this. > This make you most competent guy :) Just do it. > > > Well, I only have

A small improvement on the compose-tracker tool

Hi all, I have made a small change to the compose-tracker [0] tool, which is a fedora-messaging consumer creating tickets in this repo [1] for every composes that does not complete successfully. In each ticket you now have access to the time it took for the compose to run, in addition with the

Re: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog

On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 at 12:38, Miro Hrončok wrote: > On 22. 01. 20 12:19, Neal Gompa wrote:>> We do need a better > discoverability and > visibility in the generic > >> development community. But it is a solvable task: we can create a > >> read-only mirror of our code on every common platform out

Re: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog

On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 at 22:32, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 4:04 pm, Neal Gompa wrote: > > And any discussion of GitHub isn't going to involve self-hosted, it's > > going to involve GitHub.com, which means we're talking about losing > > more of our independence as a

Re: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog

On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 at 11:02, Neal Gompa wrote: > On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 1:05 AM Peter Robinson > wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 4:59 AM Dan Čermák > > wrote: > > > > > > Felix Schwarz writes: > > > > > > > Am 21.01.20 um 21:48 schrieb Guido Aulisi: > > > >> I totally agree with

Re: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog

On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 at 15:37, Ernestas Kulik wrote: > On Wed, 2020-01-22 at 09:12 -0500, Neal Gompa wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 9:08 AM Ernestas Kulik > > wrote: > > > On Wed, 2020-01-22 at 05:00 -0500, Neal Gompa wrote: > > > > > > And then there's the issue that we are not upstream and

Re: FEDORA-2019-b55ed79892 ejected from the push

On Tue, Dec 24, 2019, 09:23 Andrea Musuruane wrote: > Hi guys, > can someone please tell me what's going on? > > https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-b55ed79892 > > Thanks! > Hi the infra is experiencing some issue [0] which I think is the root cause of this problem. Long

Re: koji / bodhi issues status update

On Fri, 3 Jan 2020 at 22:41, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > As some of you may know, we have been having issues with koji and bodhi > over the holidays. :( koji would sometimes not tag builds or error them > with odd error messages and bodhi wasn't pushing updates. > > I'm happy to report that the

Re: Let's talk about Fedora in the '20s!

On Tue, Jan 7, 2020, 18:21 Nicolas Mailhot via devel < devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote: > Le mardi 07 janvier 2020 à 17:14 +0100, Iñaki Ucar a écrit : > > > > I'm far from having a satisfactory response to that, but I see two > > fronts here. First, marketing. How does Ubuntu managed to be

Re: 'greenwave failed' – what does this mean?

On Wed, 11 Mar 2020 at 07:58, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > Hi, > > I have two updates [1, 2] for which I got email notifications yesterday: > > This update's test gating status has been changed to 'greenwave_failed'. > It means that Greenwave failed to answer to the request sent by

Re: Rawhide update from side tag pending for 2 days

On Tue, 7 Apr 2020 at 14:57, Rex Dieter wrote: > Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > > > > https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-d120de33c5 > > > > This one is a Rawhide update from a side tag, submitted on Sunday > > morning which has been in pending for 2 days. (As it's Rawhide it's >

Re: Rawhide update from side tag pending for 2 days

On Tue, 7 Apr 2020 at 23:38, Mohan Boddu wrote: > I guess it should be a fixed in bodhi. But for now you can remove the > builds that it's complaining about in the update. > > https://github.com/fedora-infra/bodhi/issues/3991 Answered in the ticket, but I think Bodhi is behaving correctly

Re: Rawhide update from side tag pending for 2 days

On Wed, 8 Apr 2020 at 11:38, Fabio Valentini wrote: > On Wed, Apr 8, 2020, 11:27 Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > >> On Tue, Apr 07, 2020 at 05:36:44PM -0400, Mohan Boddu wrote: >> > On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 2:56 AM Richard W.M. Jones >> wrote: >> > > >> > > >> > >

Re: Rawhide update from side tag pending for 2 days

On Wed, 8 Apr 2020 at 11:29, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > On Wed, Apr 08, 2020 at 08:53:38AM +0200, Igor Gnatenko wrote: > > I agree, if this would not happen then everything would just blow up. > > Wouldn't the lower NVR builds simply be ignored? > The merging a side tag is not considering NVRs

Re: Rawhide update from side tag pending for 2 days

On Wed, 8 Apr 2020 at 13:15, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > On Wed, Apr 08, 2020 at 11:57:27AM +0200, Clement Verna wrote: > > >> > > https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-d120de33c5 > > You need to edit the update and remove these builds. You can cli

Re: Rawhide update from side tag pending for 2 days

On Wed, 8 Apr 2020 at 13:42, Fabio Valentini wrote: > On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 11:58 AM Clement Verna > wrote: > > > > > > > > On Wed, 8 Apr 2020 at 11:38, Fabio Valentini > wrote: > >> > >> On Wed, Apr 8, 2020, 11:27 Richard W.M. Jones >

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

On Wed, 1 Apr 2020 at 09:34, Julen Landa Alustiza wrote: > > > 20/4/1 08:42(e)an, Clement Verna igorleak idatzi zuen: > > > > > > On Tue, 31 Mar 2020 at 22:41, Robbie Harwood > <mailto:rharw...@redhat.com>> wrote: > > > > Clement Ver

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

On Wed, 1 Apr 2020 at 14:40, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > > > On Wed, 1 Apr 2020 at 08:16, Pierre-Yves Chibon > wrote: > >> On Wed, Apr 01, 2020 at 11:49:41AM +0200, Clement Verna wrote: >> >There is also an historical taste to write in house applications

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

On Wed, 1 Apr 2020 at 14:16, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > On Wed, Apr 01, 2020 at 11:49:41AM +0200, Clement Verna wrote: > >There is also an historical taste to write in house applications for > >things that don't really seems critical to the Fedora Project, for > ex

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

On Wed, 1 Apr 2020 at 09:47, Panu Matilainen wrote: > On 3/31/20 8:44 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > > > I understand there are practical resource considerations and so on > > here, but I still think this merits more high level and serious > > consideration. At the very least, if we have somehow

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

On Thu, 2 Apr 2020 at 20:49, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Thu, 2020-04-02 at 11:52 +0100, Leigh Griffin wrote: > > [up front: apologies for any weird formatting in this email, Evolution > is crashing on me like crazy while I try to edit it, so I'm sending it > from Roundcube which I don't

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

On Thu, 2 Apr 2020 at 22:33, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Thu, 2020-04-02 at 21:58 +0200, Clement Verna wrote: > > [evolution is still crashing. sigh. such is life. apologies for > formatting, again] > > > > So yeah, let's discount the releng folks first, because rele

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

On Mon, 30 Mar 2020 at 22:55, Till Maas wrote: > Hi, > > On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 02:40:13PM +, Leigh Griffin wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 3:26 PM Till Maas wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 01:59:07PM +, Leigh Griffin wrote: > > > > On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

On Tue, 31 Mar 2020 at 11:41, Miro Hrončok wrote: > On 31. 03. 20 10:36, Leigh Griffin wrote: > > I respect that there is disagreement but Gitlab is the choice we are > making. > > I always try to assume good intentions, but this is very hard now. I > understand > this statement as follows: > >

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

On Tue, 31 Mar 2020 at 13:46, Miro Hrončok wrote: > On 31. 03. 20 13:09, Clement Verna wrote: > > On Tue, 31 Mar 2020 at 11:41, Miro Hrončok > <mailto:mhron...@redhat.com>> wrote: > > > > On 31. 03. 20 10:36, Leigh Griffin wrote: > > > I res

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

On Tue, 31 Mar 2020 at 14:57, Neal Gompa wrote: > On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 7:10 AM Clement Verna > wrote: > > > > I just want to give a bit of insight from someone who is working day to > day on Fedora's infrastructure, since I believe that might help give a bit > more

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

On Tue, 31 Mar 2020 at 20:04, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Tue, 2020-03-31 at 13:55 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 10:44:35AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > > > I'm sorry, but I have to agree with Kevin and Michael here to a > > > significant extent. Running our own

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

On Tue, 31 Mar 2020 at 22:41, Robbie Harwood wrote: > Clement Verna writes: > > > Neal Gompa wrote: > >> Clement Verna wrote: > >> > >> As for Pagure itself, I think this is where we fundamentally > >> disagree. I think it behooves us to own

Re: bodhi: stuck updates

On Tue, 28 Apr 2020 at 18:41, Alexander Ploumistos < alex.ploumis...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > Almost a week ago, I built cmpfit and fityk in side tags on F31, F32 > and F33. While the builds for F33 moved directly to stable - as > expected - the other two got stuck for 4 days. I noticed that I

Re: CPE WEeekly: 2020-05-02

On Sun, 3 May 2020 at 21:42, clime wrote: > On Sun, 3 May 2020 at 19:42, Aoife Moloney wrote: > > > > # CPE Weekly: 2020-05-02 > > --- > > title: CPE Weekly status email > > tags: CPE Weekly, email > > --- > > > > > > > > > > Background: > > The Community Platform Engineering group is the Red

Re: CPE Weekly: 2020-05-11

On Mon, 11 May 2020 at 12:55, Clement Verna wrote: > > > On Mon, 11 May 2020 at 11:03, Fabio Valentini > wrote: > >> On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 10:42 AM Aoife Moloney >> wrote: >> > ## GitForge Updates >> > * We are tracking our progress

Re: CPE Weekly: 2020-05-11

On Mon, 11 May 2020 at 11:03, Fabio Valentini wrote: > On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 10:42 AM Aoife Moloney > wrote: > > ## GitForge Updates > > * We are tracking our progress here (nothing new added yet, fyi) > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Git_forge_update > > * And the council are tracking the

Bodhi 5.2.0 deployed in production.

Hi all, I have just deployed Bodhi 5.2.0 in production. This version should improve the performance of updates creation since the expansive task of tagging builds in koji has been moved to an async process using a celery workers. Also this version will also allow the use of side-tags to all

Re: Bodhi 5.2.0 deployed in production.

On Mon, 23 Mar 2020 at 10:39, Igor Gnatenko < ignatenkobr...@fedoraproject.org> wrote: > Hello Clement, > > On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 10:30 AM Clement Verna > wrote: > > > > Hi all, > > > > I have just deployed Bodhi 5.2.0 in production. This version s

Re: Bodhi 5.2.0 deployed in production.

On Mon, 23 Mar 2020 at 15:33, Clement Verna wrote: > > > On Mon, 23 Mar 2020 at 10:39, Igor Gnatenko < > ignatenkobr...@fedoraproject.org> wrote: > >> Hello Clement, >> >> On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 10:30 AM Clement Verna >> wrote: >> > &

Re: Bodhi 5.2.0 deployed in production.

On Mon, 23 Mar 2020 at 20:34, Fabio Valentini wrote: > On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 8:12 PM Fabio Valentini > wrote: > > > > On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 3:34 PM Clement Verna > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, 23 Mar 2020 at 10:39,

Re: wrong info on apps.fedoraproject.org

On Fri, 22 May 2020 at 08:38, Jos de Kloe wrote: > Something seems wrong in: https://apps.fedoraproject.org/packages/pyproj > The header text and upstream point to pyproject-rpm-macros in stead of > pyproj. > Does anybody know how to fix this? > That application has been in a bad shape for a

Re: Gitlab Ask Me Anything - Sept 10th, 13:30 UTC

On Wed, 9 Sep 2020 at 10:30, Julen Landa Alustiza wrote: > > > 20/9/4 17:27(e)an, Aoife Moloney igorleak idatzi zuen: > > > > > - A discussion on forum.gitlab.com at: > > > https://forum.gitlab.com/t/fedora-migration-to-gitlab-ask-me-anything-ama-thursday-september-10-2020/41971 > > > > Er, The

Schedule for Wednesday's FESCo Meeting (2020-09-16)

Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FESCo meeting Wednesday at 14:00UTC in #fedora-meeting-2 on irc.freenode.net. To convert UTC to your local time, take a look at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/UTCHowto or run: date -d '2020-09-16 14:00 UTC' Links to all issues to

Re: Schedule for Wednesday's FESCo Meeting (2020-10-14) + Proposal to Cancel

On Tue, 13 Oct 2020 at 21:49, Neal Gompa wrote: > On Tue, Oct 13, 2020 at 3:01 PM Fabio Valentini > wrote: > > > > Since there are no open tickets that are tagged with "meeting" and no new > > tickets are in need of synchronous discussion IMO, I propose to cancel > > tomorrow's meeting, and

Re: CPE Weekly: 2020-09-20

On Mon, 12 Oct 2020 at 10:09, Fabio Valentini wrote: > On Sun, Sep 20, 2020 at 10:33 PM Aoife Moloney > wrote: > > GitLab > > Thank you so much to everyone for adding your questions to the doc for > > the GitLab AMA session on Thursday 10th September, and for your > > attendance on the day

Re: bodhi updates stuck in "pending" state

On Tue, 13 Oct 2020 at 11:34, Mattia Verga via devel < devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote: > Il 12/10/20 19:54, Kevin Fenzi ha scritto: > > > >> Please see my post from a couple of weeks ago: >

  1   2   >