On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 01:18:54AM -0500, Genes MailLists wrote:
On 11/25/2010 01:13 AM, Genes MailLists wrote:
http://oswatershed.org/
Hmm some interesting data there and some looks wrong to me:
I see openssh at 5.5p1 not 5.0p1. but some like apache ours is lagging
by quite a bit
On 11/22/2010 09:44 AM, Genes MailLists wrote:
On 11/22/2010 04:21 AM, Hans de Goede wrote:
Hi,
On 11/22/2010 12:59 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
It seems like what you want is actually not to have three releases at a
time at all but to have one and update it constantly. And I actually
On 11/22/2010 01:23 PM, Genes MailLists wrote:
On 11/22/2010 09:44 AM, Genes MailLists wrote:
... rolling releases ...
Interesting website - may be useful in thinking about the release
cycle ... or not :-)
http://oswatershed.org/
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
On 11/25/2010 01:13 AM, Genes MailLists wrote:
On 11/22/2010 01:23 PM, Genes MailLists wrote:
On 11/22/2010 09:44 AM, Genes MailLists wrote:
... rolling releases ...
Interesting website - may be useful in thinking about the release
cycle ... or not :-)
http://oswatershed.org/
Adam Williamson wrote:
On Mon, 2010-11-22 at 10:21 +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
So taking for example the much much discussed KDE rebases. I think that
doing a KDE rebase for Fedora #+1 is a no brainer, for Fedora # is fine
as long as it is properly tested and for Fedora #-1 KDE should NOT be
On Tue, 2010-11-23 at 18:32 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Note that Fedora #-2 does not fit into this view for things at all,
Fedora #-2 is meant to allow people to skip a Fedora release. But in
practice I think this works out badly, because a relatively new Fedora
release like Fedora 14
On 11/23/10 12:16 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 11:39:02AM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
On 11/22/2010 11:18 AM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
They said that they install a Fedora for testing
purposes when it first comes out and enjoy the rapid pace of bugfixes as
they test the
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 12:39, Jesse Keating jkeat...@redhat.com wrote:
On 11/22/2010 11:18 AM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
They said that they install a Fedora for testing
purposes when it first comes out and enjoy the rapid pace of bugfixes as
they test the software in their environment. Then,
Hi,
On 11/22/2010 12:59 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Sun, 2010-11-21 at 23:04 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
In short: Want higher-quality updates for previous releases? Then push
version upgrades wherever possible (even and especially for libraries, as
long as they're ABI-compatible or can be
On 11/22/2010 04:21 AM, Hans de Goede wrote:
Hi,
On 11/22/2010 12:59 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
It seems like what you want is actually not to have three releases at a
time at all but to have one and update it constantly. And I actually
rather suspect that would be a model that would work
On 11/22/2010 09:44 AM, Genes MailLists wrote:
repo.
* Whenever we move a bunch of packages from staging to
stable we raise the minor number to M.(n+1). Larger
changes may require major number bump if deemed
appropriate (e.g.
On Mon, 2010-11-22 at 13:23 -0500, Genes MailLists wrote:
* A major version should be imposed every 6 months if it
has not for some reason.
Why? Your idea of tying version bumps to actual changes in the product
rather than an arbitrary timeline is an interesting one,
On 11/22/2010 01:35 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Mon, 2010-11-22 at 13:23 -0500, Genes MailLists wrote:
* A major version should be imposed every 6 months if it
has not for some reason.
Why? Your idea of tying version bumps to actual changes in the product
rather
On Mon, 2010-11-22 at 13:47 -0500, Genes MailLists wrote:
On 11/22/2010 01:35 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Mon, 2010-11-22 at 13:23 -0500, Genes MailLists wrote:
* A major version should be imposed every 6 months if it
has not for some reason.
Why? Your idea
On 11/22/2010 01:59 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
Do you have any suggestions how to manage ensuring that each ISO
snapshot has a working anaconda ?
This is the kind of thing automated testing would help a lot with; we
already have some automated testing of anaconda in place, but it doesn't
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 08:18:04AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Mon, 2010-11-22 at 10:21 +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
The way I see it, is we have:
rawhide (and for a part of the cycle Fedora #+1 testing)
Fedora #
Fedora #-1
Fedora #-2
Fedora #+1 is for people who want the
On 11/22/2010 11:18 AM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
They said that they install a Fedora for testing
purposes when it first comes out and enjoy the rapid pace of bugfixes as
they test the software in their environment. Then, the update pace slows
down at about the same time their ready to push
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 8:15 PM, mike cloaked mike.cloa...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 6:59 PM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
Good point ... was thinking it was a way to ensure anaconda keeps
pace but you're right ... it should follow the actual changes ...
Do
18 matches
Mail list logo