On Sat, 2010-04-10 at 22:30 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Fri, 2010-04-09 at 20:05 -0400, Matt McCutchen wrote:
How hard is it to use Bodhi properly?
To be clear, there's nothing 'improper' about editing updates, it's
common practice. You can suggest ways that the practice could be
On Fri, 9 Apr 2010 16:31:32 -0800, Jeff wrote:
I'll repeat. If a testing package is missing in bodhi...it means its
obsoleted by a newer one.
Bodhi has a search interface which will let you find the newer ones.
The bugzilla tickets have the reference to the newer ones.
It's bad to delete
Matt McCutchen wrote:
There are nine bugs mentioned in the update. Do you really suggest that
the update submitter should always manually copy them from an old update
to a new update?
Yes. What's so hard about that? It's a single copy and paste.
Its several copies and pastes: list of
Matt McCutchen wrote:
The top of the page now shows the newest package versions, but much of
the feedback referred to older versions, which are not listed. IMO,
this is a terribly confusing practice and Bodhi shouldn't allow it. New
packages should be submitted in a new update so that
Matt McCutchen wrote:
This surprised me. I assumed updates were immutable and did not find
any suggestion to the contrary until today.
Only stable updates are (except in special circumstances) immutable. Testing
updates are testing for a reason.
Kevin Kofler
--
devel mailing list
Jeff Spaleta wrote:
What? We don't tag testing-updates with an ID.
Actually we do. :-)
But this is just one more reason to edit (the update keeps its ID, so we
know that FEDORA-2010- is always KDE 4.4.2 for F12, with or without
edits).
Kevin Kofler
--
devel mailing list
On Fri, 2010-04-09 at 20:05 -0400, Matt McCutchen wrote:
How hard is it to use Bodhi properly?
You have jumped from asking 'am I missing something' to lecturing other
people on the 'proper' use of Bodhi in the space of three emails,
despite the fact that no reply to your original mail suggested
The log of the following update shows that it was submitted five times,
I assume with newer packages each time:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/NetworkManager-0.8.0-6.git20100408.fc12,ModemManager-0.3-9.git20100409.fc12
The top of the page now shows the newest package versions, but much
On Fri, Apr 09, 2010 at 07:10:59PM -0400, Matt McCutchen wrote:
The log of the following update shows that it was submitted five times,
I assume with newer packages each time:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/NetworkManager-0.8.0-6.git20100408.fc12,ModemManager-0.3-9.git20100409.fc12
On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 3:10 PM, Matt McCutchen m...@mattmccutchen.net wrote:
Thoughts? Am I missing something?
When someone is publishing updates and putting them into testing
specifically to address known bugs... and they get the fix wrong in
some way... I think its perfectly acceptable to
On Sat, 2010-04-10 at 01:20 +0200, Till Maas wrote:
There are nine bugs mentioned in the update. Do you really suggest that
the update submitter should always manually copy them from an old update
to a new update?
Yes. What's so hard about that? It's a single copy and paste.
But it would
On Fri, 2010-04-09 at 15:32 -0800, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
When someone is publishing updates and putting them into testing
specifically to address known bugs... and they get the fix wrong in
some way... I think its perfectly acceptable to reuse the same update
notice for the testing packages in
On Fri, 2010-04-09 at 16:26 -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
That would be nice. Though in the end, as long as the update has not
reached stable, is editing a testing update to fix regressions really
that big of a deal...
It confuses the people who put in the effort to test your packages. I
On Fri, 2010-04-09 at 19:57 -0400, Matt McCutchen wrote:
On Fri, 2010-04-09 at 15:32 -0800, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
When someone is publishing updates and putting them into testing
specifically to address known bugs... and they get the fix wrong in
some way... I think its perfectly acceptable
On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 3:57 PM, Matt McCutchen m...@mattmccutchen.net wrote:
The comparison to bugs is not valid. A bug is the same bug until it is
fixed. An update consisting of different packages is a different
update.
What? We don't tag testing-updates with an ID. Testing packages...are
On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 4:05 PM, Matt McCutchen m...@mattmccutchen.net wrote:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=573510#c2
How hard is it to use Bodhi properly?
And then at the bottom of the bug report... there's newer
packages...and newer links.
There's no value in commenting on
On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 4:05 PM, Matt McCutchen m...@mattmccutchen.net wrote:
It confuses the people who put in the effort to test your packages. I
updated to NetworkManager-0.8.0-4.git20100325.fc12.x86_64 and hit bugs
576925 and 578141. I wanted to leave negative feedback on the update,
but
On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 4:09 PM, Matt McCutchen m...@mattmccutchen.net wrote:
Better comparison: Bugzilla does not allow the content of an attachment
to be edited once it is submitted. Instead, people submit a new
attachment and obsolete the old one.
Yes and koji keeps builds around to even
On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 4:20 PM, Matt McCutchen m...@mattmccutchen.net wrote:
There's another possible explanation for that policy: users who don't
participate in testing know that any update with an ID went to stable
and won't be distracted by references to IDs of testing updates in
various
On Fri, 2010-04-09 at 16:31 -0800, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
I'll repeat. If a testing package is missing in bodhi...it means its
obsoleted by a newer one.
This surprised me. I assumed updates were immutable and did not find
any suggestion to the contrary until today.
Bodhi has a search interface
On Fri, 2010-04-09 at 16:19 -0800, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
Once a testing package is obsoleted by newer testing packages, why do
we need to keep those packages in bodhi's interface?
To keep the contents of bodhi and the repository consistent at all times
(subject to mirroring). As soon as the
21 matches
Mail list logo
