On Tue, 2010-10-05 at 00:14 +0200, drago01 wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 12:09 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Sat, 2010-10-02 at 23:10 +0100, Camilo Mesias wrote:
> >> I think the moral of this story is that the input to the process is
> >> fallible. Shit always happens.
> >>
> >> Automated s
On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 12:09 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-10-02 at 23:10 +0100, Camilo Mesias wrote:
>> I think the moral of this story is that the input to the process is
>> fallible. Shit always happens.
>>
>> Automated systems that filter or delay the 'happening' should be
>> backe
On Sat, 2010-10-02 at 23:10 +0100, Camilo Mesias wrote:
> I think the moral of this story is that the input to the process is
> fallible. Shit always happens.
>
> Automated systems that filter or delay the 'happening' should be
> backed up by statistics to show that they help...
>
> Otherwise, wh
I think the moral of this story is that the input to the process is
fallible. Shit always happens.
Automated systems that filter or delay the 'happening' should be
backed up by statistics to show that they help...
Otherwise, when they filter and delay attempts to fix problems by
people who are tr
On Sat, Oct 02, 2010 at 12:45:14AM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > "Some packages were pushed to stable before they should have been,
> > therefore we need to make it easier to push packages to stable"?
>
> Yes! Sure, this sounds paradoxical, but my premise is that NO MATTE
Matthew Garrett wrote:
> "Some packages were pushed to stable before they should have been,
> therefore we need to make it easier to push packages to stable"?
Yes! Sure, this sounds paradoxical, but my premise is that NO MATTER how
strict you make the requirement for pushes to stable, there will
James Laska wrote:
> In retrospect, if the three updates you list were in fact
> interdependent, should they have been submitted and tested as a group to
> avoid the current situation?
Yes, of course. But it's not my fault that cwickert filed those 2 updates
without the required matching firstboo
James Laska wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-10-01 at 12:36 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> Adam Williamson wrote:
>> > Again, you're extrapolating way too far from a single problem case. The
>> > problem is simply that we have the xorg-x11-drivers metapackage which
>> > requires every single X driver and is i
On Fri, 01 Oct 2010 12:36:13 +0200
Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Adam Williamson wrote:
> > Again, you're extrapolating way too far from a single problem case.
> > The problem is simply that we have the xorg-x11-drivers metapackage
> > which requires every single X driver and is in the critpath.
> > Ther
On Fri, 2010-10-01 at 12:36 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Adam Williamson wrote:
> > Again, you're extrapolating way too far from a single problem case. The
> > problem is simply that we have the xorg-x11-drivers metapackage which
> > requires every single X driver and is in the critpath. There's va
On Fri, Oct 01, 2010 at 12:36:13PM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> I CANNOT push the firstboot update which UNBREAKS those 2 spins because of
> the update policy. So instead of preventing breakage, the policy CAUSES
> breakage! How can it fail more spectacularly for you to finally realize it's
> a
Adam Williamson wrote:
> Again, you're extrapolating way too far from a single problem case. The
> problem is simply that we have the xorg-x11-drivers metapackage which
> requires every single X driver and is in the critpath. There's various
> ways we could adjust this so it's no longer the case. I
On Wed, 2010-09-29 at 22:15 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Adam Williamson wrote:
> > Again, you're extrapolating way too far from a single problem case. The
> > problem is simply that we have the xorg-x11-drivers metapackage which
> > requires every single X driver and is in the critpath. There's va
On Wednesday, September 29, 2010, 4:15:28 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Today it's this package. Tomorrow it'll be another one. Sure we can solve
> this particular problem (but it's taking WEEKS!), but why would that be the
> only one?
See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bmxyj6iInMc
Now that the pro
Adam Williamson wrote:
> Again, you're extrapolating way too far from a single problem case. The
> problem is simply that we have the xorg-x11-drivers metapackage which
> requires every single X driver and is in the critpath. There's various
> ways we could adjust this so it's no longer the case. I
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 09/28/2010 09:31 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-09-29 at 05:51 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> Michael Schwendt wrote:
>>> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/xorg-x11-drv-geode-2.11.9-1.fc14
>>
>> This update is the perfect example for
On Wed, 2010-09-29 at 05:51 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/xorg-x11-drv-geode-2.11.9-1.fc14
>
> This update is the perfect example for how this new update policy is
> completely broken and just cannot work.
Again, you're extrapola
Michael Schwendt wrote:
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/xorg-x11-drv-geode-2.11.9-1.fc14
This update is the perfect example for how this new update policy is
completely broken and just cannot work.
A bugfix is now being held up for almost a month just because there's no
proventester w
On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 10:10:16AM +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 14:19:06 -0400 (EDT), Luke wrote:
>
> > A new version of bodhi has just hit production. This release contains a
> > number
> > of bugfixes and enhancements.
> >
> > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/update
On Thu, 2010-09-23 at 10:10 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 14:19:06 -0400 (EDT), Luke wrote:
>
> > A new version of bodhi has just hit production. This release contains a
> > number
> > of bugfixes and enhancements.
> >
> > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates
>
>
On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 14:19:06 -0400 (EDT), Luke wrote:
> A new version of bodhi has just hit production. This release contains a
> number
> of bugfixes and enhancements.
>
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates
> - Email the proventesters about stale unapproved critical path updates
But
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 02:19:06PM -0400, Luke Macken wrote:
> Backend Changes
> ===
>
> - Add the new 'dist-fN-updates{-testing,}-pending' tags to builds so AutoQA
> can
> start testing them before they get pushed
> - List security & critpath testing updates in our updates-testing
A new version of bodhi has just hit production. This release contains a number
of bugfixes and enhancements.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates
Web UI Changes
==
- Improved editing functionality
- Only unpush edited updates when builds are altered
- Make a note in t
23 matches
Mail list logo
