James Antill ja...@fedoraproject.org writes:
[...]
Probably the saddest thing about this giant flamewar you've started is
[...]
For what it's worth, I have seen no lack of courtesy from Kevin Kofler
in this thread, so the accusation of flamewarism would be more
appropriately directed to
On 02/27/2010 10:38 AM, Mike McGrath wrote:
in today. Next time a user tells you I want a newer X tell them
Upgrade to rawhide.
-Mike
In my opinion rawhide is NOT a rolling release at all. Please stop
telling people to use rawhide as a rolling release. it isnt.
--
devel mailing
On Sat, 27 Feb 2010, Till Maas wrote:
On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 09:44:11AM -0600, Mike McGrath wrote:
On Sat, 27 Feb 2010, Mike McGrath wrote:
On Sat, 27 Feb 2010, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Chris Adams wrote:
IMHO you're developing the wrong distro. It is statements like yours
On Sat, 27 Feb 2010, Mail Lists wrote:
On 02/27/2010 10:38 AM, Mike McGrath wrote:
in today. Next time a user tells you I want a newer X tell them
Upgrade to rawhide.
-Mike
In my opinion rawhide is NOT a rolling release at all. Please stop
telling people to use rawhide as a
On Sat, 2010-02-27 at 13:26 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Oh, and by the way:
Orion Poplawski wrote:
There is plenty of room for something in between your vision of Fedora
and CentOS.
There is plenty of room for something in between your vision of Fedora
and Rawhide. :-)
To quote
On Saturday 27 February 2010, Kevin Kofler wrote:
If they Obsolete something else, then they're not really new packages.
I that's the blanket generalization I read it as, I don't agree with it, but
meh.
Well, true, new packages which Provide some common virtual Provides like
On 02/27/2010 04:30 PM, Mail Lists wrote:
an
I do want updates. Kernel updates, for example, are very important -
they carry many improvements - not just drivers but functionality as
well. The ones that are less obvious are the bugs that happen rarely but
that can be nasty (an occasional
On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 11:30:52 -0500,
Mail Lists li...@sapience.com wrote:
[speaking of which where on earth is 2.6.32.9 ]
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=158902
And if you want the latest 2.6.33 build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=158529
On 02/27/2010 12:33 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 11:30:52 -0500,
Mail Lists li...@sapience.com wrote:
[speaking of which where on earth is 2.6.32.9 ]
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=158902
And if you want the latest 2.6.33 build:
On 02/27/2010 12:33 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 11:30:52 -0500,
Mail Lists li...@sapience.com wrote:
[speaking of which where on earth is 2.6.32.9 ]
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=158902
Thank you .. but I really meant where are as far
On 02/27/2010 01:23 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
Why wouldn't you want try the koji version if you were willing to try an
updates-testing version? If it doesn't work for you, you boot the previous
kernel, pretty much the same as when there is a bad test version.
Me ? I am running koji
On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 16:45:36 -0500, Bill wrote:
To phrase a strawman differently:
No update is pushed to users without verification and testing from
entities
other than the packager.
No, thanks. The popular/high profile packages will get their usual
rushed +1 votes in
On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 10:45:49AM -0600, Mike McGrath wrote:
On Sat, 27 Feb 2010, Till Maas wrote:
Did you read what he wrote? I feel tempted to just copy the paragraph
Kevin wrote again, because it already answers your question: Rawhide is
not partly rolling as Fedora is.
And a typical
On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 08:43:58PM +0100, Till Maas wrote:
I like it more to have bugs fixed
in F(current) at the cost of not fixing that much bugs in F(current-1)
to keep it stable.
This should read as to have more bugs fixed in F(current) (even at the
cost of maybe introduce regressions).
On Sat, 27 Feb 2010, Till Maas wrote:
On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 10:45:49AM -0600, Mike McGrath wrote:
On Sat, 27 Feb 2010, Till Maas wrote:
Did you read what he wrote? I feel tempted to just copy the paragraph
Kevin wrote again, because it already answers your question: Rawhide is
not
On Sat, 27 Feb 2010, Till Maas wrote:
On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 10:45:49AM -0600, Mike McGrath wrote:
On Sat, 27 Feb 2010, Till Maas wrote:
Did you read what he wrote? I feel tempted to just copy the paragraph
Kevin wrote again, because it already answers your question: Rawhide is
not
On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 4:48 PM, Mike McGrath wrote:
On Sat, 27 Feb 2010, Till Maas wrote:
Afaik the KDE updates work very well and I know a fanatic KDE user who
cannot expect to wait for the next KDE update, because he knows of bugs
that are fixed in it. Usually he does not even need to
On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 05:05:54PM -0500, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
About rawhide: rawhide could/should contain more experimental stuff,
such as beta releases or cvs snapshots of actively and frequently
developed software.
Such a repo would be nice, but it won't work for Rawhide as it is,
because
On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 5:28 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 17:05:54 -0500, Orcan wrote:
About rawhide: rawhide could/should contain more experimental stuff,
such as beta releases or cvs snapshots of actively and frequently
developed software.
Why? And what would be the
On Saturday, 27 February 2010 at 16:44, Mike McGrath wrote:
On Sat, 27 Feb 2010, Mike McGrath wrote:
On Sat, 27 Feb 2010, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Chris Adams wrote:
IMHO you're developing the wrong distro. It is statements like yours
that contribute to the Fedora is a rolling beta
On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 3:45 AM, Camilo Mesias cam...@mesias.co.uk wrote:
On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 6:12 AM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
this is a *terrible* idea. We may see users as a 'resource', but they
don't see themselves this way. We should not interrupt their usage of
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 13:16, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote:
Some situations where I and others have used direct stable pushes in the
past and where I think they're really warranted and should be used:
* A new package which doesn't replace anything, and which I verified to work
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 1:36 PM, Christof Damian chris...@damian.net wrote:
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 13:16, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote:
Some situations where I and others have used direct stable pushes in the
past and where I think they're really warranted and should be used:
* A
On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 13:16:43 +0100, Kevin wrote:
Hi,
at the FESCo meeting on Tuesday, everyone except me seemed to be set on
wanting to disable the possibility to queue updates directly to stable in
Bodhi.
That would be a ridiculous decision. It would be much better to disable
that
On 02/26/2010 01:16 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Hi,
at the FESCo meeting on Tuesday, everyone except me seemed to be set on
wanting to disable the possibility to queue updates directly to stable in
Bodhi. The only reason this was not decided right there (with no outside
feedback) is that Matthew
On Fr, 2010-02-26 at 13:16 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
[...]
We really need more transparency in decision making!
[...]
If you can think of more, please post them! But even if you just agree with
me, please reply so the other FESCo members don't think it's just me!
+1
--
devel mailing list
On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 13:16 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
I think banning stable pushes is the right idea. None of your reasons is
very convincing.
* A regression which causes big breakage at least for some people slipped
through testing for whatever reason. We urgently want the fix to get out
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 01:16:43PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
I would like to collect feedback on this issue. If you want to disable
direct stable pushes, why? Could there be a less radical solution to that
problem (e.g. a policy discouraging direct stable pushes for some specific
types of
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 8:14 AM, Marcela Maslanova wrote:
- Matthias Clasen wrote:
I think banning stable pushes is the right idea. None of your reasons
is
very convincing.
+1
Another annoying issue is updates with no explanations. There is a
Notes field in bodhi that many people
- Josh Boyer jwbo...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 08:14:13AM -0500, Marcela Maslanova wrote:
- Matthias Clasen mcla...@redhat.com wrote:
On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 13:16 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
I think banning stable pushes is the right idea. None of your
reasons
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 01:16:43PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Hi,
at the FESCo meeting on Tuesday, everyone except me seemed to be set on
wanting to disable the possibility to queue updates directly to stable in
Bodhi. The only reason this was not decided right there (with no outside
feedback)
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 08:20:10AM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 08:14:13AM -0500, Marcela Maslanova wrote:
My packages are rarely tested and I forget them in testing phase for a
long time. Also fixing BR don't need testing. I simply need push
immediately the new/fixed
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 1:43 PM, Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com wrote:
[...]
Unconvincing, though. History has shown that some packagers still managed
to push new packages that suffered from broken deps [..]
Well than the review process failed ...
--
devel mailing list
Christof Damian wrote:
Will there be a minimum number of days a package has to stay in testing?
I have no idea. I'm against any minimum number of days, but I'm against the
whole proposal anyway.
Kevin Kofler
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 08:36:41AM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 02:23:33PM +0100, Till Maas wrote:
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 01:16:43PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
I would like to collect feedback on this issue. If you want to disable
direct stable pushes, why? Could
Michael Schwendt wrote:
That would be a ridiculous decision. It would be much better to disable
that feature only for those update submitters who really have been
dilettantish enough to use it inappropriately more than once.
Yeah, that's a good idea. We really need to avoid punishing everyone
On Friday 26 February 2010 14:32:16 Marcela Maslanova wrote:
- Josh Boyer jwbo...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 08:14:13AM -0500, Marcela Maslanova wrote:
- Matthias Clasen mcla...@redhat.com wrote:
On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 13:16 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
I think
Once upon a time, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at said:
at the FESCo meeting on Tuesday, everyone except me seemed to be set on
Do you really see _everything_ as FESCo (or the world) vs. Kevin Kofler?
I read over the FESCo logs from time to time, and your repeated
foot-stomping on the DSO
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
* Many (most) packages get pushed without testing. I consider people who
believe package to see tested in testing, to be in error.
To me, testing isn't much more but a delay queue.
Good point.
* Some maintainers ignore feedback on packages in testing.
Indeed, and the
On Fri, 26 Feb 2010, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 08:14:13AM -0500, Marcela Maslanova wrote:
- Matthias Clasen mcla...@redhat.com wrote:
On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 13:16 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
I think banning stable pushes is the right idea. None of your reasons
is
On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 08:26:59 -0500, Orcan wrote:
Another annoying issue is updates with no explanations. There is a
Notes field in bodhi that many people just ignore for an unknown
reason. Any update with less than a specified number of characters
(~40) in the Notes should also be banned.
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 9:24 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 08:26:59 -0500, Orcan wrote:
Another annoying issue is updates with no explanations. There is a
Notes field in bodhi that many people just ignore for an unknown
reason. Any update with less than a specified number of
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 08:04:55AM -0600, Chris Adams wrote:
EPEL has run this way for a while, and it doesn't seem to be a problem.
EPEL is very different. Packages in EPEL have been tested in fedora and so
will very rarely need hotfixes aor regression fixes (except for security
fixes, which
On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 14:07:05 +0100, Patrice wrote:
I may be remebering wrong, but an argument for bodhi against those who
wanted a simpler push mechanism (like wwhat was in the fedora extra days)
and argued that bodhi will add more unecessary delays was that there
always was the possibility
Once upon a time, Patrice Dumas pertu...@free.fr said:
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 08:04:55AM -0600, Chris Adams wrote:
EPEL has run this way for a while, and it doesn't seem to be a problem.
EPEL is very different. Packages in EPEL have been tested in fedora and so
will very rarely need
Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at writes:
Some situations where I and others have used direct stable pushes in the
past and where I think they're really warranted and should be used:
You forgot security fixes. The proposed policy is insane.
regards, tom lane
--
On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 14:49:18 +0100, Till wrote:
Imho it is more a perversion of how it is meant to be. This package was
tested before it went to updates-testing and therefore went straight to
stable. But the majority of packages goes to updates-testing and is not
tested by someone else but
Matthias Clasen wrote:
But presumably we still want to test the fix, to avoid introducing yet
another regression ?!
[snip]
Just go up to your first argument: the breage slips through. That is
exactly what happens if your judgement of 'low risk' turns out to be
wrong. And it will...
[snip]
On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 14:42:29 +0100, drago01 wrote:
History has shown that some packagers still managed
to push new packages that suffered from broken deps [..]
Well than the review process failed ...
Sometimes, not always. Don't forget that reviewers don't review builds
for all dists,
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 09:41:34AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at writes:
Some situations where I and others have used direct stable pushes in the
past and where I think they're really warranted and should be used:
You forgot security fixes. The proposed policy is
Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
Another annoying issue is updates with no explanations. There is a
Notes field in bodhi that many people just ignore for an unknown
reason. Any update with less than a specified number of characters
(~40) in the Notes should also be banned.
That's a completely unrelated
On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 14:55 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
The possibility to publish hot-fixes is most important.
+1. Not being able to push those out quickly would really suck.
What sucks more is recent hot-fixes which were even more broken than
the issue they were trying to fix. They were
Josh Boyer wrote:
Nobody said disallow direct-to-stable pushes completely, entirely, with no
exceptions. That would indeed be absurd.
But the proposed exception procedures which were floated were so burdensome
and slow that they made the entire exception procedure effectively useless.
For
Till Maas wrote:
Imho it takes too long to get packages into updates-testing, if people
are really interested in testing packages, they often seem to get
packages directly from Koji, e.g. on this update I got 3 positive Karma
points (one of them was anonymous) within 76 minutes after
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 03:35:58PM +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 14:07:05 +0100, Patrice wrote:
I may be remebering wrong, but an argument for bodhi against those who
wanted a simpler push mechanism (like wwhat was in the fedora extra days)
and argued that bodhi will
drago01 wrote:
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 1:43 PM, Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com
wrote:
[...]
Unconvincing, though. History has shown that some packagers still managed
to push new packages that suffered from broken deps [..]
Well than the review process failed ...
Indeed.
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 08:39:19AM -0600, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Patrice Dumas pertu...@free.fr said:
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 08:04:55AM -0600, Chris Adams wrote:
EPEL has run this way for a while, and it doesn't seem to be a problem.
EPEL is very different. Packages in
Patrice Dumas wrote:
I may be remebering wrong, but an argument for bodhi against those who
wanted a simpler push mechanism (like wwhat was in the fedora extra days)
and argued that bodhi will add more unecessary delays was that there
always was the possibility to push to stable for packagers.
On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 15:59 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
I can't see a reason to make exceptions.
What about the many valid reasons that have been brought up? E.g. if a
package is destroying people's hardware, wouldn't you want the fix to go out
BEFORE your hardware is dead?
I'd want it
On Fri, 26 Feb 2010, Chris Adams wrote:
EPEL has run this way for a while, and it doesn't seem to be a problem.
EPEL does not have a 6 month release cycle :)
Paul
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 16:09 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Good point. Indeed, packages are often tested sufficiently before they even
enter updates-testing. Even if pushes become more frequent, it can still
happen if testing is called for on a fast medium like IRC and the fix
touches many
Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
Maybe some package rating included in PackageKit would be nice - for
stable packages it's indicator that this package is worth to install, for
testing package it would mean it's working (but again - who's going to
rate it in pkgkit once installed).
That won't solve the
On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 10:28 -0500, Paul Wouters wrote:
On Fri, 26 Feb 2010, Chris Adams wrote:
EPEL has run this way for a while, and it doesn't seem to be a problem.
EPEL does not have a 6 month release cycle :)
The 6 month release cycle means you need to hurry to get your stuff into
On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 13:16 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
at the FESCo meeting on Tuesday, everyone except me seemed to be set on
wanting to disable the possibility to queue updates directly to stable in
Bodhi. The only reason this was not decided right there (with no outside
feedback) is
Jesse Keating wrote:
On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 14:55 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
The possibility to publish hot-fixes is most important.
+1. Not being able to push those out quickly would really suck.
What sucks more is recent hot-fixes which were even more broken than
the issue they were
Michael Schwendt wrote:
Doesn't sound right. FE could push to stable always and much more quickly,
too. What was missing was a convenient interface for packagers which they
could use to decide between testing and stable or whether not to push a
build at all. It was necessary to submit special
Chris Adams wrote:
Every time a package is built, it is susceptible to new bugs. Packaging
bugs, build requirement changes, and software bugs all creep in, and not
trying to ram things out the door as fast as possible seems like a good
idea.
But EPEL has a completely different target
On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 16:23 +0100, Patrice Dumas wrote:
Because EPEL has to be very stable, so additional time spent in testing is
even better, for example for reasons you highlight below. I never said
that packages should not go through testing in EPEL! But Fedora is another
thing.
The
On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 06:59:59 -0800, Jesse wrote:
On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 14:55 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
The possibility to publish hot-fixes is most important.
+1. Not being able to push those out quickly would really suck.
What sucks more is recent hot-fixes which were even more
Tom Lane wrote:
You forgot security fixes.
They'd probably be excepted. But that leaves (among other things) the
problem of regressions caused by security fixes (see the D-Bus and
Thunderbird fiascos, and several less fatal ones), fixes for those need to
go out ASAP.
But I agree that banning
On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 16:20 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Jesse Keating wrote:
On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 14:55 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
The possibility to publish hot-fixes is most important.
+1. Not being able to push those out quickly would really suck.
What sucks more is recent
Josh Boyer wrote:
There is no proposed policy yet. What you are replying to is Kevin's take
on a discussion that was supposed to lead to a policy being drafted.
Yet it would almost have been voted with no clear policy, it was just mjg59
pointing that out which stopped that.
Kevin
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 14:49:18 +0100,
Till Maas opensou...@till.name wrote:
Imho it is more a perversion of how it is meant to be. This package was
tested before it went to updates-testing and therefore went straight to
stable. But the majority of packages goes to updates-testing and is
Michael Schwendt wrote:
Sometimes, not always. Don't forget that reviewers don't review builds
for all dists, but packagers often publish mass-builds for multiple dists
without prior testing.
In practice that is not often a source of trouble. (Though new packages are
somewhat more likely to
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 04:40:46PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
That was my suggestion. All I got was negative comments (AIUI, nobody else
wanted anything less than a majority of FESCo to be able to approve direct
stable pushes, at least nobody said otherwise in the meeting), and even
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 10:29:00 -0500,
Matthias Clasen mcla...@redhat.com wrote:
On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 10:28 -0500, Paul Wouters wrote:
On Fri, 26 Feb 2010, Chris Adams wrote:
EPEL has run this way for a while, and it doesn't seem to be a problem.
EPEL does not have a 6 month
On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 16:40 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Transparency means asking for feedback BEFORE writing the policy. The sooner
you involve the community, the better. Putting out a policy as take it or
leave it, or worse take it, you have to, we voted it through already is
not
On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 16:40:46 +0100
Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote:
Josh Boyer wrote:
The time period is mere speculation on your part.
It's not just mere speculation, the idea has been brought up by
nirik, citing EPEL as precedent:
[begin quote (from the meeting log)]
Feb 23
On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 16:17 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Most
often what works on Fedora n also works on Fedora m. It's not like the
reviewer tested on Slackware or OS X. ;-)
Most often. Sure, that seems good enough to throw potential crap at
users. Our os most often works. Don't worry
On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 16:49 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
Could happen also with security updates. E.g. the recent gnome-screensaver
security update visually corrupted the Fedora and GNOME screensavers. Rather
harmless, but in other cases (e.g. kernel upgrades) a trade-off is made
between
On 2/26/2010 6:16, Kevin Kofler wrote:
at the FESCo meeting on Tuesday, everyone except me seemed to be set on
wanting to disable the possibility to queue updates directly to stable in
Bodhi. The only reason this was not decided right there (with no outside
feedback) is that Matthew Garrett
On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 08:26:47 -0800, Jesse wrote:
I think this conversation is derailed by the must go into
updates-testing first aspect. This isn't the intention. The intention
as I see it is that updates must be tested before they go to stable.
Can you expand on must be tested?
Some test
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 10:20:00AM -0600, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
While people using Fedora may want the latest stuff, I doubt that most of
them care about time scales less than a month (I assume I am an exception)
unless there is a bug they care about. In which case they can use the bug
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 9:59 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
Another annoying issue is updates with no explanations. There is a
Notes field in bodhi that many people just ignore for an unknown
reason. Any update with less than a specified number of characters
(~40) in the Notes
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 11:34 AM, Garrett Holmstrom wrote:
On 2/26/2010 7:26, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
Another annoying issue is updates with no explanations. There is a
Notes field in bodhi that many people just ignore for an unknown
reason. Any update with less than a specified number of
On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 17:39 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
Can you expand on must be tested?
Some test updates just don't get any testing.
Audacity 1.3.10-beta
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F12/FEDORA-2009-13139
(2009-12-09 to 2010-01-26)
Audacity 1.3.11-beta
On 2/26/2010 10:55, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 11:34 AM, Garrett Holmstrom wrote:
On 2/26/2010 7:26, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
Another annoying issue is updates with no explanations. There is a
Notes field in bodhi that many people just ignore for an unknown
reason. Any update
Patrice Dumas (pertu...@free.fr) said:
I may be remebering wrong, but an argument for bodhi against those who
wanted a simpler push mechanism (like wwhat was in the fedora extra days)
and argued that bodhi will add more unecessary delays was that there
always was the possibility to push to
On 2/26/2010 11:07, Jesse Keating wrote:
It'll require some enhancements to how bodhi is used for people
consuming testing updates, and it may require a more active role on part
of the maintainer to seek out somebody to at least give the update a
smoke test. Instead of treating
On Fri, 26 Feb 2010, Garrett Holmstrom wrote:
On 2/26/2010 11:07, Jesse Keating wrote:
It'll require some enhancements to how bodhi is used for people
consuming testing updates, and it may require a more active role on part
of the maintainer to seek out somebody to at least give the update
On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 11:16 -0600, Garrett Holmstrom wrote:
On 2/26/2010 11:07, Jesse Keating wrote:
It'll require some enhancements to how bodhi is used for people
consuming testing updates, and it may require a more active role on part
of the maintainer to seek out somebody to at least
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 6:27 PM, Mike McGrath mmcgr...@redhat.com wrote:
[...]
Though, in theory, fewer updates means a higher percentage of them can be
tested which means quality goes up.
Even if this might start another flamewar ... I like the idea of
having less updates.
The the version
On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 12:14:41 -0500, Bill wrote:
tested. Every fix carries a risk of regression.
To phrase a strawman differently:
No update is pushed to users without verification and testing from entities
other than the packager.
No, thanks. The popular/high profile packages will get
On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 18:51 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
Fedora Legacy, aka the barrel burst. More mandatory stuff, not enough
free resources = failure.
Legacy took it way too far, with much fewer resources, and a complete
lack of tools.
--
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature!
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 05:07:24PM +, Jesse Keating wrote:
direct relationship. Maybe something in the Fedora Engineering Services
initiative could be to spend some time smoke testing updates-testing
stuff.
Something I am dreaming about is to have some infrastructure to
automatically
On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 12:46:27 -0500, Orcan wrote:
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 12:12 PM, Garrett Holmstrom wrote:
On 2/26/2010 10:55, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 11:34 AM, Garrett Holmstrom wrote:
On 2/26/2010 7:26, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
Another annoying issue is updates with
On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 18:56 +0100, Till Maas wrote:
Something I am dreaming about is to have some infrastructure to
automatically test packages, so mabye they could build that first and
then write tests for packages.
The AutoQA project is in full swing, developing just that, a framework
to
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 05:07:24PM +, Jesse Keating wrote:
It'll require some enhancements to how bodhi is used for people
consuming testing updates, and it may require a more active role on part
of the maintainer to seek out somebody to at least give the update a
smoke test.
For many
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 12:34 PM, drago01 wrote:
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 6:27 PM, Mike McGrath wrote:
[...]
Though, in theory, fewer updates means a higher percentage of them can be
tested which means quality goes up.
Even if this might start another flamewar ... I like the idea of
having
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 07:42:16PM +0100, Patrice Dumas wrote:
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 05:07:24PM +, Jesse Keating wrote:
It'll require some enhancements to how bodhi is used for people
consuming testing updates, and it may require a more active role on part
of the maintainer to seek
201 - 300 of 357 matches
Mail list logo
