On 01/24/2013 05:31 PM, Jochen Schmitt wrote:
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 04:53:01PM +0100, Michal Schmidt wrote:
Was the timer unit active? What does systemctl status yourunit.timer show?
I think, this is a good hint, systemctl status innd-expire.timer told
me something like
Active: inactive...
On 01/24/2013 01:49 AM, Andrew Rist wrote:
We've been following the discussions to replace MySQL with MariaDB in
Fedora, and would like to provide additional data to help the
community make the most informed decision. Instead of switching**the
default to MariaDB 5.5 we would like to propose
On 01/24/2013 05:41 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 05:30:52PM +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
What surprised me the most was that none of those components
packages depended on cron which was the same thing with rsyslog when
I looked into that which is what I expected
On 01/24/2013 03:19 PM, Remi Collet wrote:
Le 24/01/2013 02:49, Andrew Rist a écrit :
We've been following the discussions to replace MySQL with MariaDB
...
/me speaking from my experience.
I don't maintain MySQL, but various other mysql packages
(mysql-utilities, mysql-connector-python,
On 01/24/2013 10:43 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Thu, 2013-01-24 at 14:57 -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Matthew Miller (mat...@fedoraproject.org) said:
But I guess we simply have a different definition of a user here. Your
definition is probably closer to what the page calls admins, which is
On 01/23/2013 09:08 PM, John Reiser wrote:
On 01/23/2013 12:26 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
Also, I strongly question this line in the Feature page:
Users generally won't see this, as interface names are not exposed in
high-level UIs.
This is simply not true for many values of the word
On 01/23/2013 07:29 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 1:04 PM, Jaroslav Reznikjrez...@redhat.com wrote:
= Features/FedoraUpgrade =
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/FedoraUpgrade
Feature owner(s): Miroslav Suchýmsu...@redhat.com
Upgrade Fedora to next version using yum
On 01/23/2013 10:55 PM, drago01 wrote:
Supporting none is not an option.
Really suddenly not an option.
We did that for a long time why is that suddenly not an option so please
enlighten me why that's not an option.
Users are better of keeping /home on a separated partition and re-use it
On 01/16/2013 10:07 AM, Henrique Junior wrote:
Other distros are discussing about the future of MySQL and the
implementation of MariaDB as default. What is Fedora position about
this matter?
Got any links to those other distributions discussions
JBG
--
devel mailing list
On 01/16/2013 04:23 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote:
On 1/16/13 10:04 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 8:22 AM, Jan Kratochvil jan.kratoch...@redhat.com
mailto:jan.kratoch...@redhat.com wrote:
It affects also compilation, GDB was rebuilding for 10-15 minutes instead
of
On 01/09/2013 12:18 AM, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Tue, Jan 08, 2013 at 11:17:35PM +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 01/08/2013 08:15 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
So, what do folks think? Workable? Crazy? Crazy enough to work?
And we are supposed to QA this how?
Like any software?
I'm not sure
On 01/09/2013 04:34 AM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jan 2013 19:18:36 -0500
Matthew Miller mat...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Tue, Jan 08, 2013 at 11:17:35PM +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson
wrote:
On 01/08/2013 08:15 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
So, what do folks think? Workable? Crazy? Crazy enough
On 01/08/2013 03:48 AM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 4:31 AM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
On Tue, 2013-01-08 at 03:06 +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
So the remaining webapps that ship with the broken configuration that we
are about to release into the hands
On 01/08/2013 03:59 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
On 01/08/2013 10:40 AM, Adrian Alves wrote:
why am not in https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/NodeJS If i was
the first one on start with NODEJS package
The list of people on that page is volunteer-added. If you would like
to help on
On 01/08/2013 07:56 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Tue, 08 Jan 2013 09:39:10 +
Jóhann B. Guðmundsson johan...@gmail.com wrote:
This may come as an completely stupid question but given that we have
not released yet why cant we remove those packages?
Because we are in the very last stages
On 01/08/2013 08:13 PM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 9:07 PM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson
johan...@gmail.com wrote:
Surely we must have some kind of omg we cant release with this
component in final it's utterly broken or posses security risk! fail
safe mechanism in place to deal
On 01/08/2013 08:15 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
So, what do folks think? Workable? Crazy? Crazy enough to work?
And we are supposed to QA this how?
JBG
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On 01/07/2013 02:54 PM, Remi Collet wrote:
2 months ago I have open a bug tracker for all packages with an apache
configuration file, which need to be fixed to work with httpd 2.4.
The current situation, 1 week before release, don't seems really good,
see
On 01/07/2013 10:19 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
Why? What can FESCo do about it? We don't need to kick every damn issue
to FESCo, as seems to be a trend lately.
Ah I see but it's ok when you do...
There's no high-level technical
decision to be made here. The bugs just need to get fixed.
On 01/08/2013 02:10 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Tue, 2013-01-08 at 01:56 +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 01/07/2013 10:19 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
Why? What can FESCo do about it? We don't need to kick every damn issue
to FESCo, as seems to be a trend lately.
Ah I see but it's ok
On 01/03/2013 08:03 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
Hey, folks. I'm not really sure how to frame it, but the result of all
my poking about at keyboard layout bugs and related stuff recently is
that I'm pretty sad at the state of support for
anything-but-U.S.-English in Fedora 18.
snip.../snip
I
On 01/03/2013 09:42 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
I really didn't want this to turn into a release philosophy thread, the
question was limited strictly to a 'how bad do we really think these
keymap issues are' thing.
Yes and I think they are bad enough that we should delay the release for
them
On 01/03/2013 10:37 AM, Jiri Eischmann wrote:
So yes, these issues are serious, but IMHO rather a long-term problem we
should focus on after releasing F18.
I disagree I think we need to fix those things first.
Ask yourself this, If the roles where reversed and US keymaps and
translation was
On 01/03/2013 01:57 PM, Jiri Eischmann wrote:
drago01 píše v Čt 03. 01. 2013 v 14:43 +0100:
On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 2:27 PM, Jiri Eischmann eischm...@redhat.com wrote:
drago01 píše v Čt 03. 01. 2013 v 14:13 +0100:
On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Fabian Deutsch fabian.deut...@gmx.de wrote:
On 12/17/2012 01:23 PM, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
I don't think FESCo should interfere according to the process:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_blocker_bug_process
Imho you can join their next go/no-go meeting and try to persuade all
stakeholders.
This falls under fesco to decide.
On 12/10/2012 04:31 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
c) how do you define 'contributor' ?
Active fas account...
JBG
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On 12/10/2012 09:40 PM, Casey Dahlin wrote:
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 04:20:34PM -0500, Przemek Klosowski wrote:
are not worth paying support for. I suggested to RedHat that they
provide a graceful switch-over to CENTOS in such case: it's possible
manually anyway, so it would be a nice gesture
On 12/08/2012 05:07 AM, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:
On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 7:26 PM, Arun SAG saga...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 5:32 AM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson johan...@gmail.com
wrote:
If we want to solve this we need to release an Fedora LTS release for our
and the potential
On 12/08/2012 05:51 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
My primary problem with Fedora isn't lack of stability, but lack of
API/ABI and UI-stability/persistence/sustainability between upgrades.
In other words, I can cope with the number of crashes upgrades
typically come along with, but the number
On 12/07/2012 09:28 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Feature is something somebody considers important enough to create
feature page for it. Period.
That describes the current state and is your point of view.
To me an Feature is a completely different thing.
I am not sure why do you want to
On 12/07/2012 11:13 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Dne 7.12.2012 11:13, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson napsal(a):
On 12/07/2012 09:28 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Feature is something somebody considers important enough to create
feature page for it. Period.
That describes the current state and is your point
On 12/07/2012 12:53 PM, Tomas Radej wrote:
Hi everybody.
Disclaimer: This mail is written from the position of a Fedora
community member. Red Hat has nothing to do with this.
I don't want to start yet another rant saying that everything is broken
and we'd be better off if we aped Debian.
On 12/07/2012 03:11 PM, Andrew Price wrote:
Ah the ol' Fedora stability improvement thread. It must be Friday. Ok,
I'll bite.
This sort of conversation often comes and goes without much being
done. Usually it consists of debates between three camps:
1. Those who see Fedora as an
On 12/07/2012 03:51 PM, David Woodhouse wrote:
On Fri, 2012-12-07 at 15:40 +0100, Caterpillar wrote:
The unique and most impotant negative feedback I had it when I
upgraded a system from Fedora 14 to 15, that was the upgrade from
Gnome 2 to Gnome 3.
…
Fedora community should test big
On 12/07/2012 04:46 PM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 11:13 AM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson
johan...@gmail.com wrote:
I am not sure why do you want to categorize it by size and impact, when it
will be autocategorized by feedback on ML.
It's common knowledge that you cant
On 12/07/2012 04:59 PM, Simo Sorce wrote:
On Fri, 2012-12-07 at 16:47 +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 12/07/2012 03:51 PM, David Woodhouse wrote:
On Fri, 2012-12-07 at 15:40 +0100, Caterpillar wrote:
The unique and most impotant negative feedback I had it when I
upgraded a system from
On 12/07/2012 05:22 PM, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
On Fri, Dec 07, 2012 at 04:51:43PM +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 12/07/2012 04:46 PM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 11:13 AM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson
johan...@gmail.com wrote:
I am not sure why do you want to categorize
On 12/07/2012 06:37 PM, Michael Scherer wrote:
While I cannot answer for Jóhann, I think a proposal could be to
contact for example QA, as some features will have a huge impact for
them. Contact irc support, as they may have some insight on the common
issue reported by people, etc.
We have a
On 12/07/2012 06:58 PM, Simo Sorce wrote:
I do not care ab out arguing with him, I care to give advice to others
(if they care for my advice, feel free to fully ignore).
Don't follow that model, it's broken security wise, unless you keep your
machine disconnected from the network.
In the end
On 12/07/2012 07:54 PM, les wrote:
Hi, everyone,
My name is Les Howell. I do semiconductor test programs for mainframe
ATE.
My current issue is with GRUB2. I am slightly visually impaired due to
glaucoma. This is important, because setting my system up to use bigger
fonts is
On 12/06/2012 04:20 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
As I said in the meeting yesterday, I think the definition of a Feature
needs to be cleared up before we can really tackle this one. Feature to
me is something important enough that it shouldn't be auto-accepted. If
there is some other class of thing
On 11/28/2012 08:08 PM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
Hello,
this proposal was recently linked in various places, so let's formally
introduce it:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Mmaslano/Feature_process
This an incremental change, not a major overhaul designed to solve all problems.
The benefits
On 11/14/2012 03:53 PM, Richard Hughes wrote:
In https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/OfflineSystemUpdates we've
implemented doing the package updates at first-boot time. This makes a
lot of the hard-to-fix problems a lot easier. The question then
becomes, how do we make the OS Update process
On 11/14/2012 07:33 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 09:44:55AM -0500, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 9:26 AM, Chris Adams cmad...@hiwaay.net wrote:
Great - let's take something that people are using, remove that
functionality, and not announce it!
This is
On 11/12/2012 09:05 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
Last time I checked the SIG's surrounding each of those spins they
themselves where responsible for their own spins sizes so if they pass
that they might just as well be doing so deliberately to deliver better
out
On 11/12/2012 09:36 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
FESCo decided the benefit to always having mini-debuginfo
available outweighed the downside of increased space.
I see done to making abrt atleast somewhat usable
JBG
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
On 11/11/2012 05:31 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
We need to get the live images back to CD size
Last time I checked the SIG's surrounding each of those spins they
themselves where responsible for their own spins sizes so if they pass
that they might just as well be doing so deliberately to
On 11/09/2012 02:15 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
I'd put things more strongly than Bill: what's been happening in
anaconda lately is the precise opposite of what Johann suggests, and
that's exactly the right direction.
I question if that's the right direction since I cant for the love of me
On 11/09/2012 01:34 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Fri, Nov 09, 2012 at 07:12:50AM -0500, Matthias Clasen wrote:
firewalld isn't in the minimal comps groups. However, it's pulled in
by anaconda, see pyanaconda/install.py:
# anaconda requires storage packages in order to make sure the target
On 11/09/2012 04:43 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
While that has some obvious issues, like new hardware doesn't work
with old kernel/syslinux/grub/udev/etc...,
It's not like it always works in that area anyway
there are further issues as some configuration has to happen within
the installed
On 11/09/2012 05:01 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
On 11/09/2012 05:48 AM, Matthias Clasen wrote:
I still think there would be room for shrinking both code base and the
system dependencies if the installer focused on its core responsibility
- getting the bits on disk. That is an important and very
On 11/09/2012 05:13 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
As far as Anaconda reverted in the future, I'm confused as to
when/where this became a requirement.
It never was up to this point you know the usual attitude of let's
cross that bridge when we get there and this release cycle has proven
that it's
On 11/09/2012 05:17 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
I can keep going, but is it really necessary?
I argue yes maybe not here but having a wikipage under the anaconda name
space which mention all the package and configuration files change that
can directly affect the installer and how would be
On 11/09/2012 05:35 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
On Fri, Nov 09, 2012 at 09:13:32AM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
As far as Anaconda reverted in the future, I'm confused as to
when/where this became a requirement.
I think he's saying this because:
1) Features have a section for contingency
On 11/09/2012 09:21 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
We just just have feature submission deadline, feature approval
deadline, then we work on approved features until they are done and then
give releng/marketing x time to prepare for release. that means we can
have 5 month release cycle or 7 or 9
On 11/10/2012 12:12 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Adam Williamson wrote:
It's not one of our supported upgrade mechanisms, and there appears to
be no chance of that changing.
That's the whole problem. Why is our most reliable upgrade mechanism not
supported?
For the first QA got completely bypass
On 11/10/2012 12:30 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
You're being pretty absurd comparing 2003 requirements to 2012
requirements without allowing at all for hardware inflation.
My hp pavilion came out of the box with 2GB ram bought last year ago and
tablets and various other devices aren't that
On 11/10/2012 01:19 AM, Carl G wrote:
Could you provide a link to that discussion?
pick a release cycle and go through the mailinglist archives.
It's one of those topics that resurface on each of them so you should
not have a hard time finding something in each of them...
JBG
--
devel
On 11/10/2012 02:01 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Sat, 2012-11-10 at 02:49 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Adam Williamson wrote:
You're being pretty absurd comparing 2003 requirements to 2012
requirements without allowing at all for hardware inflation.
People thinking like you are the reason why
On 11/10/2012 04:46 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Sat, 2012-11-10 at 04:40 +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 11/10/2012 12:30 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
You're being pretty absurd comparing 2003 requirements to 2012
requirements without allowing at all for hardware inflation.
My hp
On 11/10/2012 05:12 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
But it's not_helping_ anything. It's not signal. It's just noise. I
didn't say 'you need 6GB of RAM to install Fedora'. I said to Kevin
'you're comparing the minimum requirements from a time when 256MB of RAM
was a standard desktop configuration to
On 11/08/2012 05:56 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
It turns out that software development is hard. It's especially hard
when you have a hugely complicated system with no central management and
no real incentive for most of the skilled workers to cooperate on
sections of the project that influence
On 11/08/2012 09:21 AM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
time/feature based distribution
Hmm interesting
Actually feature based release cycle might work and should be something
we should aim at.
JBG
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
On 11/08/2012 12:42 PM, Conan Kudo (ニール・ゴンパ) wrote:
The other problem is that it continues to make Fedora as a project
look bad
How Fedora looks is in the hands of the beholder.
While you see the delayed release as a negative thing I see it as a
positive and a strong thing since from where
On 11/08/2012 01:10 PM, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
Hi,
I'm upgrading Fedoras by yum [1] for some time. I know that is not
supported method and can have some problems. But the truth is that it
was always less error prone as compared to upgrade using Anaconda or
preupgrade. Even with upgrade from
On 11/08/2012 02:31 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Thu, Nov 08, 2012 at 12:58:59PM +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
Is it not just time to form a CoreOS SIG which include Anaconda,
the storage developers, The kernel, Dracut,/Systemd/Udev, and
arguably selinux and the network guys as well
On 11/08/2012 03:58 PM, David Cantrell wrote:
I completely agree! Which is why we were getting early test builds done
during the F-17 cycle and working to get people testing the installer then.
The main problem is that no one_wants_ to test the installer. It's a
utility. A necessary step to
On 11/08/2012 04:37 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Thu, Nov 08, 2012 at 04:32:29PM +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
Or if I rephrase why could not the community continue to use
Anaconda in it's form that it existed in F17 until the new
installer was *completly* done?
Because nobody
On 11/08/2012 04:37 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Thu, Nov 08, 2012 at 04:32:29PM +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
Or if I rephrase why could not the community continue to use
Anaconda in it's form that it existed in F17 until the new
installer was *completly* done?
Because nobody
On 11/08/2012 05:04 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
1) highly user visible changes (beyond artwork or theme changes)
* Possibly. I'm unclear as to precisely what has changed here. If it's
just the default but the user can select custom partitioning and is
able to use LVM there,
On 11/08/2012 05:14 PM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
On 8 November 2012 10:06, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson johan...@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/08/2012 04:37 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Thu, Nov 08, 2012 at 04:32:29PM +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
Or if I rephrase why could not the community
On 11/08/2012 05:30 PM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
On 8 November 2012 10:20, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson johan...@gmail.com wrote:
Your problem is that you are assuming a lot of things without actually
doing any legwork to find out what anaconda does. Anaconda does a lot
of probing of hardware
On 11/08/2012 06:37 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 11:11 PM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson
johan...@gmail.com mailto:johan...@gmail.com wrote:Bro...
It should be sufficient to just tell/point the installer to use new
packages while still retain the same functionality/support
On 11/08/2012 07:56 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
or do you have any other installer you can point to that behaves
like this?
Pointing out how the installer currently works does not change my
opinion on the fact that if an installer ( any installer ) cannot
run on his own bits
On 11/08/2012 08:40 PM, David Lehman wrote:
No. It is an inevitable consequence of the feature set demanded of the
Fedora OS installer.
If thing A must be able to set up and configure thing B and thing B
changes in ways directly related to said configuration, how can you
reasonably expect thing
On 11/08/2012 09:26 PM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
On 8 November 2012 13:02, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson johan...@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/08/2012 07:56 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
or do you have any other installer you can point to that behaves like
this?
Pointing out how the installer currently
On 11/06/2012 05:35 AM, Garrett Holmstrom wrote:
On 2012-11-05 12:22, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 11/05/2012 07:52 PM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
A crit path update that affects, say, two packages and nothing else,
could be approved by default as well. Many of the crit path
features however
Is it really that hard for you people to follow our mailing list
guidelines[1]?
JBG
1.https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines#If_You_Are_Replying_to_a_Message
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On 11/06/2012 01:07 PM, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
Oh no, you are top posting again ;-)
Could you create fesco ticket for this package? I proposed usage of
the script in Johann's ticket
https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/967#comment:7 Imho it might be
better to give acl to more people, then
On 11/06/2012 07:54 PM, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
One have to say the hard truth - only the latest fedora release is supported by
many maintainers because that's what they/we use.
Alexander Kurtakov
Red Hat Eclipse team
Please read and follow the mailinglist guidelines...
JBG
--
devel
On 11/05/2012 09:22 AM, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
You are using your use-case for everyone. If you insist on automatic
process, then the metric should work with more data.
It's good that we elected FESCO to find out and decide which appropriate
metric data should be used to determine that...
On 11/05/2012 07:52 PM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
A crit path update that affects, say, two packages and nothing else,
could be approved by default as well. Many of the crit path
features however affect a large or extremely large package set (e.g.
the sysv-systemd script migration), in which case
On 11/03/2012 08:17 AM, Michael Scherer wrote:
Le samedi 03 novembre 2012 à 11:19 +0530, Rahul Sundaram a écrit :
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 10:25 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
well, it would maybe a start to DROP packages which are still
missing systemd-units
On 11/01/2012 05:25 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
It would have been super nice to actually include a link in all of those
bugs, or some reference. I mean, they must have been filed by program,
so it's not as if you would have had to do a bunch of extra typing.
Most of us do this actually
On 11/02/2012 10:55 AM, Stanislav Ochotnicky wrote:
Quoting Michael Cronenworth (2012-11-01 18:33:24)
Adam Williamson wrote:
I didn't want to throw this grenade into the debate, but now someone
else has, I'll just note that I was in favour of this before and I'm
still in favour of it now. :)
On 11/02/2012 01:20 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 9:03 AM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson
johan...@gmail.com wrote:
Trust me when I say this we have to fix other processes we have *before* we
can properly fix the feature process.
Which?
As soon as an feature depends on other components
On 11/02/2012 02:58 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Fri, Nov 02, 2012 at 02:52:46PM +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
As soon as an feature depends on other components or several other
components and their maintainers involvement/participation, then for
example the unresponsive maintainers
On 11/02/2012 03:32 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Fri, Nov 02, 2012 at 03:12:56PM +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
As soon as an feature depends on other components or several other
components and their maintainers involvement/participation, then for
example the unresponsive maintainers
On 11/02/2012 04:25 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
=?UTF-8?B?IkrDs2hhbm4gQi4gR3XDsG11bmRzc29uIg==?= johan...@gmail.com writes:
On 11/02/2012 03:32 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Fri, Nov 02, 2012 at 03:12:56PM +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
Dead/un-maintained packages need to be removed/reassigned
On 11/02/2012 04:56 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Fri, 02 Nov 2012 16:44:06 +
Jóhann B. Guðmundsson johan...@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/02/2012 04:25 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
=?UTF-8?B?IkrDs2hhbm4gQi4gR3XDsG11bmRzc29uIg==?=
johan...@gmail.com writes:
On 11/02/2012 03:32 PM, Matthew Miller wrote
On 11/02/2012 04:56 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
How exactly are you going to force maintainers who go missing to do so
at a prescheduled time? Real life is seldom that convenient.
bash script + a cron job should suffice to achieve just that.
Somehow, we are failing to communicate.
We would not
On 11/02/2012 06:05 PM, Jon Ciesla wrote:
No, they might simply have had nothing to do. Sometimes applications
are stable, have no releases, and have no bugs files against them.
sigh
Then those individuals would simply respond to the email that that was
the case and they are still alive
On 11/02/2012 06:27 PM, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
Wrong. Do you know how few of the problems we see in Eclipse land don't need
fixes upstreams? And some of these issues require man/months (years sometimes)
upstream before there is smth to show in Fedora. Don't make your assumptions
based on
On 11/02/2012 06:56 PM, Emmanuel Seyman wrote:
If a package is unmaintained, send out a call to co-maintain to devel@ and open
up its ACLs.
That package would hardly be un-maintained if it has co-maintainers now
does it...
JBG
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
On 11/02/2012 07:56 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
Anyway, we've rather torpedo'ed the feature process discussion now, and
I'm sorry about that :/. Hence the topic change. But while we're blue
sky thinking about massive release process changes, I think it's worth
keeping a firm grasp on what Fedora
On 11/01/2012 12:22 PM, Michael Scherer wrote:
Maybe having some kind of dependencies between feature could also be a
idea. Anaconda requires dracut to not change, so we need a way to
express this, and a way to avoid changes at the same time. The same goes
for a python upgrade or lots of things.
On 10/31/2012 05:59 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
On 10/31/2012 09:56 AM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
* Jesse Keating, Jeremy Katz, and others who helped shape the current
policy
and theory of our release schedule felt that the 6 month release
cycle was
fine but that certain features were going
On 11/01/2012 06:09 PM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
We were thinking with a few folks more about Self contained feature
but yeah, there's a lack of real definition.
Other thing is - these Self contained features could be approved
implicitly once are announced on devel list (in cooperation with
On 11/01/2012 08:13 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
The other thing that we mustn't forget are major changes that aren't
put through the feature process, but slip in via the back door.
As far as I know you are not obligated to participate in the feature
process and what do you exactly define as
On 10/30/2012 06:08 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
How is it that we're even considering shipping this version for F18?
For any other package, we'd be telling the maintainer to hold off
till F19. The rest of us don't get to be doing major feature
development post-beta-freeze.
That's what I have been
501 - 600 of 938 matches
Mail list logo
