Re: Triaging RH Bugzilla and forwarding bugs upstream (Was: F24, small backward steps)

On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 09:42:07AM -0700, stan wrote: Wouldn't it make more sense to have a way for package maintainers to decide if a bug was local or upstream, and a button they could push to automatically send it upstream? I really like Stan's idea. The root of this problem lies in the

Re: Triaging RH Bugzilla and forwarding bugs upstream (Was: F24, small backward steps)

On 19/09/16 20:27, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote: > On 09/18/2016 10:16 PM, Jeff Fearn wrote: > >> Hi, we might be able to extend the External Trackers extension in RH >> Bugzilla to be able to create as >> well as sync bugs. > > Between which issue trackers is that supported? Currently,

Re: Triaging RH Bugzilla and forwarding bugs upstream (Was: F24, small backward steps)

On 09/18/2016 10:16 PM, Jeff Fearn wrote: Hi, we might be able to extend the External Trackers extension in RH Bugzilla to be able to create as well as sync bugs. Between which issue trackers is that supported? JBG ___ devel mailing list --

Re: Triaging RH Bugzilla and forwarding bugs upstream (Was: F24, small backward steps)

On Mon, 2016-09-19 at 08:16 +1000, Jeff Fearn wrote: > Hi, we might be able to extend the External Trackers extension in RH > Bugzilla to be able to create as > well as sync bugs. > > We've shared the code with upstream to see if they like our approach > so far. > > Fedora is our biggest user

Re: Triaging RH Bugzilla and forwarding bugs upstream (Was: F24, small backward steps)

On 17/09/16 03:19, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 09:42:07AM -0700, stan wrote: >> On Fri, 16 Sep 2016 10:01:30 -0400 >> Matthew Miller wrote: >> >>> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 05:31:31PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: >> So, what if we

Re: Triaging RH Bugzilla and forwarding bugs upstream (Was: F24, small backward steps)

On 17/09/16 03:27, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > On Fri, 2016-09-16 at 17:19 +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: >> Automatically? If I receive a bug upstream, I want to receive it >> without the distribution's embellishments: I want to know what >> *upstream* version of the software was used,

Re: Triaging RH Bugzilla and forwarding bugs upstream (Was: F24, small backward steps)

On Fri, 16 Sep 2016 12:27:30 -0500 Michael Catanzaro wrote: [snip] > I don't care so much about all that (it's more important for systemd > due to distro integration), I just want the bug reporter CCed on the > upstream bug, and able to respond when I ask a question. Yeah,

Re: Triaging RH Bugzilla and forwarding bugs upstream (Was: F24, small backward steps)

On Fri, 16 Sep 2016 17:19:24 + Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > Automatically? If I receive a bug upstream, I want to receive it > without the distribution's embellishments: I want to know what > *upstream* version of the software was used, how I can reproduce the >

Re: Triaging RH Bugzilla and forwarding bugs upstream (Was: F24, small backward steps)

On Fri, 2016-09-16 at 17:19 +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > Automatically? If I receive a bug upstream, I want to receive it > without the distribution's embellishments: I want to know what > *upstream* version of the software was used, how I can reproduce the > bug using generic

Re: Triaging RH Bugzilla and forwarding bugs upstream (Was: F24, small backward steps)

On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 09:42:07AM -0700, stan wrote: > On Fri, 16 Sep 2016 10:01:30 -0400 > Matthew Miller wrote: > > > On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 05:31:31PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > > > > > So, what if we steer end users away from Bugzilla and > > > > >

Re: Triaging RH Bugzilla and forwarding bugs upstream (Was: F24, small backward steps)

On Fri, 16 Sep 2016 10:01:30 -0400 Matthew Miller wrote: > On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 05:31:31PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > > > > So, what if we steer end users away from Bugzilla and > > > > bug-trackers completely² and to Ask Fedora³ instead? The triage > > > > team

Re: Triaging RH Bugzilla and forwarding bugs upstream (Was: F24, small backward steps)

On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 10:01 AM, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 05:31:31PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: >> > > So, what if we steer end users away from Bugzilla and bug-trackers >> > > completely² and to Ask Fedora³ instead? The triage team could [...]

Re: Triaging RH Bugzilla and forwarding bugs upstream (Was: F24, small backward steps)

On Fri, 16 Sep 2016 10:01:30 -0400 Matthew Miller wrote: > On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 05:31:31PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > > > > So, what if we steer end users away from Bugzilla and > > > > bug-trackers completely² and to Ask Fedora³ instead? The triage > > > > team

Re: Triaging RH Bugzilla and forwarding bugs upstream (Was: F24, small backward steps)

On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 05:31:31PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > > > So, what if we steer end users away from Bugzilla and bug-trackers > > > completely² and to Ask Fedora³ instead? The triage team could [...] > > But there's no triage team. Adding another layer of indirection without > > a

Re: Triaging RH Bugzilla and forwarding bugs upstream (Was: F24, small backward steps)

On Thu, 2016-09-15 at 23:09 +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > So, what if we steer end users away from Bugzilla and bug-trackers > > completely² and to Ask Fedora³ instead? The triage team could [...] > > > But there's no triage team. Adding another layer of indirection without > a

Re: Triaging RH Bugzilla and forwarding bugs upstream (Was: F24, small backward steps)

On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 01:46:53PM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 09:44:06AM -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > > I disagree in general; when the bug volume exceeds a certain amount > > bugzilla basically becomes useless. However, it would be really nice if > > _someone_

Re: Triaging RH Bugzilla and forwarding bugs upstream (Was: F24, small backward steps)

On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 11:21:44AM -0400, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > On 14 September 2016 at 10:44, Jason L Tibbitts III > wrote> > I disagree in general; when the bug volume exceeds a certain amount > > bugzilla basically becomes useless. However, it would be really nice

Re: F24, small backward steps

On 09/13/2016 04:41 PM, Bastien Nocera wrote: - Original Message - - Original Message - I'm seeing 24 bugs at: https://apps.fedoraproject.org/packages/fprintd/bugs/all including a potential security one: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/1333882 Fedora's bugzilla is a garbage

Re: How to handle "weakly maintained packages" [was Re: F24, small backward steps]

On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 2:35 PM, Josh Boyer wrote: > On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 2:25 PM, Neal Gompa wrote: >> On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 1:52 PM, Matthew Miller >> wrote: >>> On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 01:27:45PM -0400, Josh Boyer

Re: Triaging RH Bugzilla and forwarding bugs upstream (Was: F24, small backward steps)

On 09/14/2016 05:46 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: What I'd_really_ love to see is a layer separating bug trackers from end users. That layer already exist in the form of irc forum and askbot does it not? ( someone from the support sub-community can provide information how successful these are )

Re: How to handle "weakly maintained packages" [was Re: F24, small backward steps]

On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 2:25 PM, Neal Gompa wrote: > On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 1:52 PM, Matthew Miller > wrote: >> On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 01:27:45PM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: >>> > Yes, THIS. Our current model does not really allow us to express this

Re: How to handle "weakly maintained packages" [was Re: F24, small backward steps]

On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 1:52 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 01:27:45PM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: >> > Yes, THIS. Our current model does not really allow us to express this >> > at all -- there's "orphaned", but that's not user-visible. >> Our current

How to handle "weakly maintained packages" [was Re: F24, small backward steps]

On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 01:27:45PM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: > > Yes, THIS. Our current model does not really allow us to express this > > at all -- there's "orphaned", but that's not user-visible. > Our current model actually could express this though. We could put > the weakly maintained

Re: Triaging RH Bugzilla and forwarding bugs upstream (Was: F24, small backward steps)

On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 09:44:06AM -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > I disagree in general; when the bug volume exceeds a certain amount > bugzilla basically becomes useless. However, it would be really nice if > _someone_ looked at RH bugzilla for those packages and did something > with them.

Re: Triaging RH Bugzilla and forwarding bugs upstream (Was: F24, small backward steps)

On 09/14/2016 07:01 PM, Josh Boyer wrote: My impression is, in many cases, it's ego, which prevents to acknowledge they need "to divert". I'm not sure what you mean by divert. This is a Dinglish "politically correct" phrase to describe "to partially give up/step down", "make room to

Re: F24, small backward steps

On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 1:23 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 04:44:38PM +, Debarshi Ray wrote: >> (a) The maintenance status of a package is not a binary variable. It >> is easy to imagine a third state - weakly maintained. > > Yes, THIS. Our

Re: F24, small backward steps

On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 04:44:38PM +, Debarshi Ray wrote: > (a) The maintenance status of a package is not a binary variable. It > is easy to imagine a third state - weakly maintained. Yes, THIS. Our current model does not really allow us to express this at all -- there's "orphaned", but

Re: Triaging RH Bugzilla and forwarding bugs upstream (Was: F24, small backward steps)

On Wed, 14 Sep 2016 13:01:14 -0400 Josh Boyer wrote: > Quite simply, there are valid cases where a maintainer, or a group of > maintainers, cannot scale to the number of bugs a package can > generate. The larger and more complex a package, the more likely that > is.

Re: Triaging RH Bugzilla and forwarding bugs upstream (Was: F24, small backward steps)

On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 12:47 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > On 09/14/2016 06:24 PM, Josh Boyer wrote: >> >> On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 11:50 AM, Ralf Corsepius >> wrote: > > >>> In this areas I primarily see 2 groups: >>> - Maintainers, who are overloaded

Re: F24, small backward steps

On Wed, 14 Sep 2016 11:43:31 -0500 Michael Catanzaro wrote: > On Wed, 2016-09-14 at 08:33 +0200, Jakub Filak wrote: > > Does GNOME Bugzilla support XMLRPC? Is there any testing instance > > ABRT team > > can play with? > > Yes and yes, but is XMLRPC being removed from

Re: Triaging RH Bugzilla and forwarding bugs upstream (Was: F24, small backward steps)

On 09/14/2016 06:24 PM, Josh Boyer wrote: On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 11:50 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: In this areas I primarily see 2 groups: - Maintainers, who are overloaded with BZs. IMO, this primarily is an ego problem and partially a project management/leadership

Re: F24, small backward steps

On Wed, 2016-09-14 at 09:51 +0200, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > So, I'm going for the crazy idea front here, now that RHBZ is hooked > onto > fedmsg, should we try to write a tool creating bugs on GBZ for each > gnome bugs > created on RHBZ and sync comments between both instances? (well, we >

Re: F24, small backward steps

On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 04:24:02PM -0400, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > OK this is the most frustrating of a TON of frustrating parts of this > conversation. > > 1. WHY DO WE SHIP PACKAGES THAT WE 'KNOW' AREN'T MAINTAINED? > 2. Why are people 'maintainers' of such packages if they know upstream >

Re: Triaging RH Bugzilla and forwarding bugs upstream (Was: F24, small backward steps)

On 09/14/2016 02:44 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: I disagree in general; when the bug volume exceeds a certain amount bugzilla basically becomes useless. However, it would be really nice if _someone_ looked at RH bugzilla for those packages and did something with them. This responsibility

Re: Triaging RH Bugzilla and forwarding bugs upstream (Was: F24, small backward steps)

On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 11:50 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > On 09/14/2016 04:44 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: >>> >>> "RC" == Ralf Corsepius writes: >> >> >> RC> IMO, it should be mandatory for Fedora maintainers to look into RH >> RC> Bugzilla,

Re: F24, small backward steps

On 13 September 2016 at 21:24, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > On 13 September 2016 at 16:03, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > OK this is the most frustrating of a TON of frustrating parts of this > conversation. > > 1. WHY DO WE SHIP PACKAGES THAT WE 'KNOW'

Re: Triaging RH Bugzilla and forwarding bugs upstream (Was: F24, small backward steps)

On 09/14/2016 04:44 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: "RC" == Ralf Corsepius writes: RC> IMO, it should be mandatory for Fedora maintainers to look into RH RC> Bugzilla, because that's the product they are "maintaining" and what RC> users are using. I disagree in general;

Re: Triaging RH Bugzilla and forwarding bugs upstream (Was: F24, small backward steps)

On 14 September 2016 at 10:44, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: >> "RC" == Ralf Corsepius writes: > > RC> IMO, it should be mandatory for Fedora maintainers to look into RH > RC> Bugzilla, because that's the product they are "maintaining" and what > RC>

Triaging RH Bugzilla and forwarding bugs upstream (Was: F24, small backward steps)

> "RC" == Ralf Corsepius writes: RC> IMO, it should be mandatory for Fedora maintainers to look into RH RC> Bugzilla, because that's the product they are "maintaining" and what RC> users are using. I disagree in general; when the bug volume exceeds a certain amount

Re: F24, small backward steps

On 09/13/2016 07:44 PM, Josh Boyer wrote: That is the crux of the problem with this approach. It is impossible for a user to determine which packages have maintainers that look in RH Bugzilla and which do not. We could have a “Tire Fire” product besides the “Fedora” product in

Re: F24, small backward steps

On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 01:20:06PM -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > On Tue, 2016-09-13 at 18:49 +0200, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > > If ABRT is a firehose of bugs flying to RH's bugzilla, would the > > situation be > > really better if the reports were sent to gnome's BZ? > > Yes, it would. Keep

Re: F24, small backward steps

On 09/13/2016 07:19 PM, Paul Wouters wrote: On Tue, 13 Sep 2016, Ralf Corsepius wrote: This is a truly awful experiance from POV of a Fedora user filing bugs :-( We've set a silent trap for them with no warning of the fact that their bug reports are going to be ignored until Fedora EOL

Re: F24, small backward steps

On 09/13/2016 05:00 PM, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > Hi, > > To be clear, the problem is that a small handful of package maintainers > (including Bastien) are collectively "responsible" for all of the GNOME > and freedesktop components in Fedora (including fprintd), and it's > simply not reasonable

Re: F24, small backward steps

On 09/13/2016 07:44 PM, Josh Boyer wrote: That is the crux of the problem with this approach. It is impossible for a user to determine which packages have maintainers that look in RH Bugzilla and which do not. IMO, it should be mandatory for Fedora maintainers to look into RH Bugzilla,

Re: F24, small backward steps

On 09/13/2016 06:32 PM, Bastien Nocera wrote: > > > - Original Message - > > > A couple of things could be done to help with that: > - Bring back the x-bugzilla .desktop metadata, and have ABRT file upstream > bugs Does GNOME Bugzilla support XMLRPC? Is there any testing instance

Re: F24, small backward steps

On Fri, Sep 09, 2016 at 03:53:06PM -0400, Roger Wells wrote: > Just a couple of smallish things after upgrading (via dnf) from F23 to > F24 a couple of months ago: > > 1. deja-dup gui: > > one has to deselect then reselect the Overview option in order > to be offered the "Backup Now"

Re: F24, small backward steps

On Tue, 2016-09-13 at 14:46 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > > I'm not sure it really is unmaintained. There was 34.2 release this > April, by the looks of things. > > http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=10035 Aaaand I do see it in Software now. At long last! -- devel

Re: F24, small backward steps

On Tue, 2016-09-13 at 17:17 -0400, Roger Wells wrote: > > if it is unmaintained why does its GUI operation change between Fedora > versions? I'm not sure it really is unmaintained. There was 34.2 release this April, by the looks of things.

Re: F24, small backward steps

On Tue, 13 Sep 2016 15:03:28 -0500 Michael Catanzaro wrote: > On Tue, 2016-09-13 at 14:33 -0400, Roger Wells wrote: > > It was the first problem, the one with deja-dup > > Where did you report the bug? The upstream bug tracker is [1]. If you > reported it somewhere else,

Notifying co-maintainers about bug reports (was: F24, small backward steps)

Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > Everyone having `watchbugzilla` on a package is automatically cc'ed > to the bug reports. > In the early days of pkgdb2, I had it be: everyone with > `watchbugzilla` or `commit` but I was asked to remove that last > condition [1]. Would it be possible to show that

Re: F24, small backward steps

On 09/13/2016 04:03 PM, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > On Tue, 2016-09-13 at 14:33 -0400, Roger Wells wrote: >> It was the first problem, the one with deja-dup > > Where did you report the bug? The upstream bug tracker is [1]. If you > reported it somewhere else, of course you'd be told it's the

Re: F24, small backward steps

On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 2:24 PM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > On 13 September 2016 at 16:03, Michael Catanzaro wrote: >> On Tue, 2016-09-13 at 14:33 -0400, Roger Wells wrote: >>> It was the first problem, the one with deja-dup >> >> Where did you report

Re: F24, small backward steps

On 13 September 2016 at 16:03, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > On Tue, 2016-09-13 at 14:33 -0400, Roger Wells wrote: >> It was the first problem, the one with deja-dup > > Where did you report the bug? The upstream bug tracker is [1]. If you > reported it somewhere else, of

Re: F24, small backward steps

On Tue, 2016-09-13 at 14:33 -0400, Roger Wells wrote: > It was the first problem, the one with deja-dup Where did you report the bug? The upstream bug tracker is [1]. If you reported it somewhere else, of course you'd be told it's the wrong place Unfortunately, I think deja-dup is

Re: F24, small backward steps

On 09/13/2016 12:31 PM, Bastien Nocera wrote: > For which one of the problems you listed? It would certainly have been > interesting to list those in your original mail. It was the first problem, the one with deja-dup > > - Original Message - >> On 09/13/2016 11:09 AM, Daniel P. Berrange

Re: F24, small backward steps

On Tue, 2016-09-13 at 18:49 +0200, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > If ABRT is a firehose of bugs flying to RH's bugzilla, would the > situation be > really better if the reports were sent to gnome's BZ? Yes, it would. Keep in mind that upstream maintainers are responsible for far fewer packages than

Re: F24, small backward steps

On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 01:19:04PM -0400, Paul Wouters wrote: > On Tue, 13 Sep 2016, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > > > This is a truly awful experiance from POV of a Fedora user filing bugs > > > :-( > > > We've set a silent trap for them with no warning of the fact that their > > > bug reports

Re: F24, small backward steps

On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 11:00 AM, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > Hi, > > To be clear, the problem is that a small handful of package maintainers > (including Bastien) are collectively "responsible" for all of the GNOME > and freedesktop components in Fedora (including fprintd),

Re: F24, small backward steps

On Tue, 13 Sep 2016, Ralf Corsepius wrote: This is a truly awful experiance from POV of a Fedora user filing bugs :-( We've set a silent trap for them with no warning of the fact that their bug reports are going to be ignored until Fedora EOL procedure closes them :-( One lesson I have

Re: F24, small backward steps

On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 12:32:20PM -0400, Bastien Nocera wrote: > > > - Original Message - > > > This is a truly awful experiance from POV of a Fedora user filing bugs :-( > > We've set a silent trap for them with no warning of the fact that their > > bug reports are going to be ignored

Re: F24, small backward steps

- Original Message - > Could you elaborate a little on your reasoning/thoughts please? > > I am quite interesting to understand your point of view. > From where I stand, we are offering a way for someone to unlock someone's > else > computer without a password. > I understand the

Re: F24, small backward steps

- Original Message - > > > - Original Message - > > I'm seeing 24 bugs at: > > https://apps.fedoraproject.org/packages/fprintd/bugs/all > > including a potential security one: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/1333882 > > Fedora's bugzilla is a garbage fire as far as I'm concerned.

Re: F24, small backward steps

For which one of the problems you listed? It would certainly have been interesting to list those in your original mail. - Original Message - > On 09/13/2016 11:09 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 10:00:32AM -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> To be

Re: F24, small backward steps

- Original Message - > Hi, > > To be clear, the problem is that a small handful of package maintainers > (including Bastien) are collectively "responsible" for all of the GNOME > and freedesktop components in Fedora (including fprintd), and it's > simply not reasonable to expect them to

Re: F24, small backward steps

On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 12:24:33PM -0400, Bastien Nocera wrote: > > > - Original Message - > > On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 07:30:07AM -0400, Bastien Nocera wrote: > > > > > > > > > - Original Message - > > > > I'm seeing 24 bugs at: > > > >

Re: F24, small backward steps

- Original Message - > This is a truly awful experiance from POV of a Fedora user filing bugs :-( > We've set a silent trap for them with no warning of the fact that their > bug reports are going to be ignored until Fedora EOL procedure closes > them :-( > > Even if we can't enhance

Re: F24, small backward steps

- Original Message - > On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 07:30:07AM -0400, Bastien Nocera wrote: > > > > > > - Original Message - > > > I'm seeing 24 bugs at: > > > https://apps.fedoraproject.org/packages/fprintd/bugs/all > > > including a potential security one:

Re: F24, small backward steps

On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 11:43 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > On 09/13/2016 05:09 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > >> This is a truly awful experiance from POV of a Fedora user filing bugs :-( >> We've set a silent trap for them with no warning of the fact that their >> bug

Re: F24, small backward steps

On 09/13/2016 05:09 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: This is a truly awful experiance from POV of a Fedora user filing bugs :-( We've set a silent trap for them with no warning of the fact that their bug reports are going to be ignored until Fedora EOL procedure closes them :-( One lesson I have

Re: F24, small backward steps

On 09/13/2016 11:09 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 10:00:32AM -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote: >> Hi, >> >> To be clear, the problem is that a small handful of package maintainers >> (including Bastien) are collectively "responsible" for all of the GNOME >> and freedesktop

Re: F24, small backward steps

On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 10:00:32AM -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > Hi, > > To be clear, the problem is that a small handful of package maintainers > (including Bastien) are collectively "responsible" for all of the GNOME > and freedesktop components in Fedora (including fprintd), and it's >

Re: F24, small backward steps

Hi, To be clear, the problem is that a small handful of package maintainers (including Bastien) are collectively "responsible" for all of the GNOME and freedesktop components in Fedora (including fprintd), and it's simply not reasonable to expect them to read all the bugs that are assigned to

Re: F24, small backward steps

On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 07:30:07AM -0400, Bastien Nocera wrote: > > > - Original Message - > > I'm seeing 24 bugs at: > > https://apps.fedoraproject.org/packages/fprintd/bugs/all > > including a potential security one: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/1333882 > > Fedora's bugzilla is a

Re: F24, small backward steps

- Original Message - > I'm seeing 24 bugs at: > https://apps.fedoraproject.org/packages/fprintd/bugs/all > including a potential security one: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/1333882 Fedora's bugzilla is a garbage fire as far as I'm concerned. I already made that abundantly clear I think.

Re: F24, small backward steps

On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 07:05:32AM -0400, Bastien Nocera wrote: > > > - Original Message - > > > > > > Dne 9.9.2016 v 21:53 Roger Wells napsal(a): > > > Just a couple of smallish things after upgrading (via dnf) from F23 to > > > F24 a couple of months ago: > > > > > > > > > 2.

Re: F24, small backward steps

- Original Message - > > > Dne 9.9.2016 v 21:53 Roger Wells napsal(a): > > Just a couple of smallish things after upgrading (via dnf) from F23 to > > F24 a couple of months ago: > > > > > > 2. fingerprint identification: > > > > The laptop has a fingerprint reader and it works

Re: F24, small backward steps

Dne 9.9.2016 v 21:53 Roger Wells napsal(a): > Just a couple of smallish things after upgrading (via dnf) from F23 to > F24 a couple of months ago: > > > 2. fingerprint identification: > > The laptop has a fingerprint reader and it works fine. However > I prefer not to use it. The user

Re: F24, small backward steps

On Fri, 2016-09-09 at 17:45 -0400, Roger Wells wrote: > > Let me know if you think I should submit this upstream somewhere. Probably to gnome-shell on bugzilla.gnome.org , I guess. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin .

Re: F24, small backward steps

On 09/09/2016 04:44 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Fri, 2016-09-09 at 15:53 -0400, Roger Wells wrote: >> Just a couple of smallish things after upgrading (via dnf) from F23 to >> F24 a couple of months ago: >> >> 1. deja-dup gui: >> >> one has to deselect then reselect the Overview option

Re: F24, small backward steps

On Fri, 9 Sep 2016, Adam Williamson wrote: 2. fingerprint identification: The laptop has a fingerprint reader and it works fine. However I prefer not to use it. The user set up specifies that fingerprint login is disabled. However whenever I am asked for a password the

Re: F24, small backward steps

On Fri, 2016-09-09 at 15:53 -0400, Roger Wells wrote: > Just a couple of smallish things after upgrading (via dnf) from F23 to > F24 a couple of months ago: > > 1. deja-dup gui: > > one has to deselect then reselect the Overview option in order > to be offered the "Backup Now" option. >

F24, small backward steps

Just a couple of smallish things after upgrading (via dnf) from F23 to F24 a couple of months ago: 1. deja-dup gui: one has to deselect then reselect the Overview option in order to be offered the "Backup Now" option. The details option in the progress dialog will only display