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
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 affect a large or extremely large package set (e.
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 Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 8:38 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 05, 2012 at 07:55:26PM +0100, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
>> > Here, I think you're smooshing together two of the three levels I'd
>> > suggested, putting both non-crit-path enhancements and new leaf
>> > functionality into one category
On Mon, Nov 05, 2012 at 07:55:26PM +0100, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> > Here, I think you're smooshing together two of the three levels I'd
> > suggested, putting both non-crit-path enhancements and new leaf
> > functionality into one category. Is that correct?
> Yes, the "self-contained" wording cover
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 7:34 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 05, 2012 at 05:45:14PM +0100, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
>> > I think "Leaf" is better than "Self contained", since it's unlikely for
>> > the feature to have zero outside dependencies. I think it'd be fine for
>> > such a feature to r
On Mon, Nov 05, 2012 at 05:45:14PM +0100, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> > I think "Leaf" is better than "Self contained", since it's unlikely for
> > the feature to have zero outside dependencies. I think it'd be fine for
> > such a feature to rely on small changes to existing packages (version
> > updat
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 7:34 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 01, 2012 at 02:09:21PM -0400, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
>> > That sounds good. Maybe recast those ideas as three levels?
>> > - Critical Path Feature
>> > - Other Enhancement Feature
>> > - New Leaf Feature
>> We were thinking wit
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 7:10 PM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"
wrote:
> 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 a
On Thu, Nov 01, 2012 at 02:43:00PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> I think I once proposed that FESCo should formally have the ability to
> declare that a given change ought to be a feature and force it through
> the feature process, but that proposal was rejected.
I think that requiring the featu
On Thu, 2012-11-01 at 21:28 +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> 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 obli
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 a
On Thu, Nov 01, 2012 at 08:13:57PM +, 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".
That's where the critpath vs. other enhancement distinction comes in -- for
critpath we can
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".
Rich.
--
Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones
virt-p2v converts physical machines to virtual machines. Boot with a
live
On Thu, 2012-11-01 at 19:50 +0100, drago01 wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 7:45 PM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
> > - Original Message -
> >> On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 7:34 PM, Matthew Miller
> >> wrote:
> >> > On Thu, Nov 01, 2012 at 02:09:21PM -0400, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
> >> >> > That sounds
On Thu, Nov 01, 2012 at 07:41:21PM +0100, drago01 wrote:
> > I think "Leaf" is better than "Self contained", since it's unlikely for the
> > feature to have zero outside dependencies. I think it'd be fine for such a
> > feature to rely on small changes to existing packages (version updates,
> > say
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 2:45 PM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
> - Original Message -
>> On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 7:34 PM, Matthew Miller
>> wrote:
>> > On Thu, Nov 01, 2012 at 02:09:21PM -0400, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
>> >> > That sounds good. Maybe recast those ideas as three levels?
>> >> > - Cr
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 7:45 PM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
> - Original Message -
>> On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 7:34 PM, Matthew Miller
>> wrote:
>> > On Thu, Nov 01, 2012 at 02:09:21PM -0400, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
>> >> > That sounds good. Maybe recast those ideas as three levels?
>> >> > - Cr
- Original Message -
> On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 7:34 PM, Matthew Miller
> wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 01, 2012 at 02:09:21PM -0400, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
> >> > That sounds good. Maybe recast those ideas as three levels?
> >> > - Critical Path Feature
> >> > - Other Enhancement Feature
> >> >
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 7:34 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 01, 2012 at 02:09:21PM -0400, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
>> > That sounds good. Maybe recast those ideas as three levels?
>> > - Critical Path Feature
>> > - Other Enhancement Feature
>> > - New Leaf Feature
>> We were thinking wit
On Thu, Nov 01, 2012 at 02:09:21PM -0400, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
> > That sounds good. Maybe recast those ideas as three levels?
> > - Critical Path Feature
> > - Other Enhancement Feature
> > - New Leaf Feature
> We were thinking with a few folks more about "Self contained feature"
> but yeah,
- Original Message -
> 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
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
Fe
- Original Message -
> On Thu, Nov 01, 2012 at 10:08:39AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > I was rather thinking we can simply take advantage of the critical
> > path
> > definition here. After all, when we came up with the critpath, the
> > idea
> > was it was a general concept which coul
On Thu, Nov 01, 2012 at 10:08:39AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> I was rather thinking we can simply take advantage of the critical path
> definition here. After all, when we came up with the critpath, the idea
> was it was a general concept which could be useful beyond the idea of a
> 'critpath
On 11/01/2012 07:08 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Thu, 2012-11-01 at 09:56 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Thu, Nov 01, 2012 at 09:24:52AM +0200, Panu Matilainen wrote:
There are features and features... some of them are new versions of
leafnode packages or a just bunch of new packages which no
On Thu, 2012-11-01 at 09:56 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 01, 2012 at 09:24:52AM +0200, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> > There are features and features... some of them are new versions of
> > leafnode packages or a just bunch of new packages which nothing else
> > depends on, and some of th
On Thu, Nov 01, 2012 at 09:24:52AM +0200, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> There are features and features... some of them are new versions of
> leafnode packages or a just bunch of new packages which nothing else
> depends on, and some of them affect *everything* in the distro.
> Perhaps the invasive chan
28 matches
Mail list logo
