Le vendredi 27 août 2010 à 15:47 -0700, Bob Arendt a écrit :
Actually I think Fedora *should* articulate who the users are, basically
design and express who and what Fedora is designed for. If you poll
users - people who download Fedora - and cater to their stated desires
for the sake of
On 08/31/2010 10:40 PM, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 8:57 AM, Jon Masters jonat...@jonmasters.org wrote:
Things like Firefox, and Thunderbird have large external teams
maintaining them who appear to have goals around ensuring a consistent
user experience, with testing, and so
On 08/28/2010 05:37 PM, Till Maas wrote:
With the FPCA, the board could relicense everything. But RedHat appoints
the board chair, who has veto power. If this is right, then this could
be changed by making the chair seat another normal seat, that is voted
for by the community and make the
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 04:03:17PM -0400, Arthur Pemberton wrote:
Where, keep in mind, slow is defined as twice a year, right?
Yes.
I think this is a remarkable definition of slow. Especially if we can
provide options for people who want a faster path to do so.
I don't think that's fair at
On 08/31/2010 05:42 AM, Jesse Keating wrote:
On 8/30/10 1:06 PM, Sven Lankes wrote:
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 12:36:42PM -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
Why not give QA the time to settle and find out how the new things
work out?
Because the likes of Kevin throw fits whenever we try to insert
On 08/30/2010 07:22 PM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 10:03, Jesse Keating jkeat...@redhat.com wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08/28/2010 09:25 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Jesse Keating wrote:
The cynic in me would expect that the people who want
Andrew Haley píše v Út 31. 08. 2010 v 09:40 +0100:
On 08/31/2010 05:42 AM, Jesse Keating wrote:
I'm saying that these changes were made in the face of extreme
resistance on Kevin's (and other's) parts. So whatever the outcome it's
already going counter to the Fedora that he would like to
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 9:36 PM, Jesse Keating jkeat...@j2solutions.net wrote:
Thomas Janssen thom...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
What previous niche?
We had a distro that was pretty general purpose, worked for servers and
desktops and even laptops. We had a predictable schedule.
We had new
On 08/31/2010 11:55 AM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
Andrew Haley píše v Út 31. 08. 2010 v 09:40 +0100:
On 08/31/2010 05:42 AM, Jesse Keating wrote:
I'm saying that these changes were made in the face of extreme
resistance on Kevin's (and other's) parts. So whatever the outcome it's
already going
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 12:48:02AM -0400, Arthur Pemberton wrote:
New features hit rawhide all the time, with no waiting period.
So developers are going to put new features into rawhide knowing that
they will never make it to updates?
That seems like an excellent model, yes. When the next
On Mon, 2010-08-30 at 22:08 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
Developers put new features in rawhide knowing that they will be in the
next release of Fedora, which would be at the /most/ 6 months from the
time they drop the feature.
It's more like 9 months. A feature has to wait until the next
On Mon, 2010-08-30 at 22:47 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Mon, 2010-08-30 at 22:33 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
Where do you see somebody proposing that no updates be issued? Where do
you see somebody proposing a setup where fixing a graphics card can't be
done in the stable release
On 08/31/2010 11:26 AM, Arthur Pemberton wrote:
Strongly free and tracking upstream is something developers would
appreciate, however bug fix only updates are often contrary to what
developers want and outlier users like myself.
It depends on whether Fedora is a platform for development. If
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 00:45:49 -0400,
Arthur Pemberton pem...@gmail.com wrote:
So far the only brokeness I have had in all of F13 is with `seabios-bin`.
Wasn't there recently a packagekit problem where it stopped doing updates,
making it kind of hard to get a fix unless you knew about yum?
On Tue, 31 Aug 2010, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 00:45:49 -0400,
Arthur Pemberton pem...@gmail.com wrote:
So far the only brokeness I have had in all of F13 is with `seabios-bin`.
Wasn't there recently a packagekit problem where it stopped doing updates,
making it
...
So in other words, dependency 1.6 to 1.6.1 is okay as it is likely a
bug fix, but 1.6 to 1.8 is not okay because it is a new release.
there's no reason why 1.8 won't be ok after 2-3 weeks in updates-testing
So, web developers want latest httpd/PHP/Rails/MySQL; GNOME developers
want
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 8/31/10 5:33 AM, Matt McCutchen wrote:
On Mon, 2010-08-30 at 22:08 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
Developers put new features in rawhide knowing that they will be in the
next release of Fedora, which would be at the /most/ 6 months from the
time
On Tue, 2010-08-31 at 08:54 -0400, Jon Masters wrote:
On Mon, 2010-08-30 at 22:47 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Mon, 2010-08-30 at 22:33 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
Where do you see somebody proposing that no updates be issued? Where do
you see somebody proposing a setup where
On Tuesday, August 31, 2010 16:14:39 Matthew Miller wrote:
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 03:57:47PM +0200, Michal Hlavinka wrote:
So in other words, dependency 1.6 to 1.6.1 is okay as it is likely a
bug fix, but 1.6 to 1.8 is not okay because it is a new release.
there's no reason why 1.8
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 05:31:43PM +0200, Michal Hlavinka wrote:
So in other words, dependency 1.6 to 1.6.1 is okay as it is likely a
bug fix, but 1.6 to 1.8 is not okay because it is a new release.
there's no reason why 1.8 won't be ok after 2-3 weeks in updates-testing
I hope you
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 8/31/10 6:57 AM, Michal Hlavinka wrote:
there's no reason why 1.8 won't be ok after 2-3 weeks in updates-testing
An update that changes behavior for the end user would never be
acceptable as an update to a stable release. Only severe exceptions
On 08/30/2010 10:48 PM, Arthur Pemberton wrote:
So developers are going to put new features into rawhide knowing that
they will never make it to updates?
I do it all the time because I know it will be out ~ 6 months, which is pretty
quick.
--
Orion Poplawski
Technical Manager
On 08/30/2010 10:50 PM, Arthur Pemberton wrote:
The attention to freedom is not unique. The attention to upstream is
invisible to users.
But it is why I want to *develop* for Fedora.
--
Orion Poplawski
Technical Manager 303-415-9701 x222
NWRA/CoRA Division
On Tuesday, August 31, 2010 17:36:39 Matthew Miller wrote:
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 05:31:43PM +0200, Michal Hlavinka wrote:
So in other words, dependency 1.6 to 1.6.1 is okay as it is likely
a bug fix, but 1.6 to 1.8 is not okay because it is a new release.
there's no reason
On Tuesday, August 31, 2010 17:39:11 Jesse Keating wrote:
On 8/31/10 6:57 AM, Michal Hlavinka wrote:
there's no reason why 1.8 won't be ok after 2-3 weeks in updates-testing
An update that changes behavior for the end user would never be
acceptable as an update to a stable release. Only
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 07:05, Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com wrote:
On 08/31/2010 11:26 AM, Arthur Pemberton wrote:
Strongly free and tracking upstream is something developers would
appreciate, however bug fix only updates are often contrary to what
developers want and outlier users like
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 06:08:09PM +0200, Michal Hlavinka wrote:
there's no reason why 1.8 won't be ok after 2-3 weeks in
updates-testing
I hope you are kidding.
nope, I'm 100 % serious
Unfortunately, then: this does not currently match reality.
that's not any usefull
On 08/31/2010 12:26 PM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 07:05, Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com wrote:
It depends on whether Fedora is a platform for development. If it is,
developers usually do not want many changes.
It depends on the type of developer and what they
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 7:39 AM, Jesse Keating jkeat...@j2solutions.net wrote:
An update that changes behavior for the end user would never be
acceptable as an update to a stable release. Only severe exceptions
should be made to this rule, where the time/effort to backport the
important fixes
2010/8/31 Jesse Keating jkeat...@j2solutions.net:
An update that changes behavior for the end user would never be
acceptable as an update to a stable release. Only severe exceptions
should be made to this rule, where the time/effort to backport the
important fixes from a new upstream release
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 08:40:29 -0800,
Jeff Spaleta jspal...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm a package maintainer for one such application. I have yet to hear
from a single user...ever..that tracking releases from upstream has
been unwanted for this specific application regardless of the UI
tweaks
On Tue, 2010-08-31 at 18:18 +0200, Michal Hlavinka wrote:
On Tuesday, August 31, 2010 17:39:11 Jesse Keating wrote:
On 8/31/10 6:57 AM, Michal Hlavinka wrote:
there's no reason why 1.8 won't be ok after 2-3 weeks in updates-testing
An update that changes behavior for the end user would
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 8:57 AM, Jon Masters jonat...@jonmasters.org wrote:
Things like Firefox, and Thunderbird have large external teams
maintaining them who appear to have goals around ensuring a consistent
user experience, with testing, and so forth, over and above just getting
new
On Tue, 2010-08-31 at 09:58 -0600, Orion Poplawski wrote:
On 08/30/2010 10:50 PM, Arthur Pemberton wrote:
The attention to freedom is not unique. The attention to upstream is
invisible to users.
But it is why I want to *develop* for Fedora.
You cut out the rest of Arthur's email, where he
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 11:51:27AM -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
I would like to see some per package exceptions to this policy that don't
need to be revisited for every update.
I think it's reasonable to put packages into different tiers. Or lanes, if
we don't want to think in terms of which
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 12:32 PM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
On Tue, 2010-08-31 at 09:58 -0600, Orion Poplawski wrote:
On 08/30/2010 10:50 PM, Arthur Pemberton wrote:
The attention to freedom is not unique. The attention to upstream is
invisible to users.
But it is why I
On Fri, 2010-08-27 at 18:08 -0400, Jon Masters wrote:
Again, I feel it is necessary to have a survey of Fedora users.
That's users you've already got. It might make the users you already
have happier, sure, and that's a fine thing to do. Iif you want to grow,
though, you may be limiting yourself
* Bruno Wolff III [31/08/2010 19:25] :
Packages that need to sync to external servers or peers such as multiplayer
games have similar issues. You need to be up to date to for the package
to be useful in some cases.
Same goes for programs that scrape web pages (I'm thinking of gcstar but
I'm
On Mon, 2010-08-30 at 20:41 -0400, Jon Masters wrote:
Great stuff. And there's more in there too. So the current User_base in
addition to being not very well linked and referenced could hardly be
described as reflecting all of the views in this particular thread.
Should it really reflect all
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 9:34 AM, Emmanuel Seyman
emmanuel.sey...@club-internet.fr wrote:
Same goes for programs that scrape web pages (I'm thinking of gcstar but
I'm sure there are others). If the page layout changes, the page scraper
needs to be updated and that usually involves updating the
Jeff Spaleta (jspal...@gmail.com) said:
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 9:34 AM, Emmanuel Seyman
emmanuel.sey...@club-internet.fr wrote:
Same goes for programs that scrape web pages (I'm thinking of gcstar but
I'm sure there are others). If the page layout changes, the page scraper
needs to be
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 10:31 AM, Bill Nottingham nott...@redhat.com wrote:
That's gross. (I realize you're blocked on the sites you rely on, but
geez, can't you find sites with real APIs?)
It is what it is. Though I do like being given credit for doing
development work that I'm not actually
Some people like everything up-to-date, while others are more
conservative. Fine. Isn't there a middle ground?
Currently there are these repos: updates and updates_testing.
Maybe two more repos could be added: updates_fixes and updates_enhancements.
After a package stays for a while in
* Bill Nottingham [31/08/2010 21:01] :
That's gross.
Yup, no question about it.
(I realize you're blocked on the sites you rely on, but
geez, can't you find sites with real APIs?)
For some of them, it is possible (DVDfr.com has a stable XML API and the
webmaster has
Jeff Spaleta (jspal...@gmail.com) said:
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 10:31 AM, Bill Nottingham nott...@redhat.com wrote:
That's gross. (I realize you're blocked on the sites you rely on, but
geez, can't you find sites with real APIs?)
It is what it is. Though I do like being given credit for
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 01:26:27PM -0400, Arthur Pemberton wrote:
Maybe I was too long winded, or failed to communicate my point: a
stable (bug fix only updates, slow feature release), strongly FOSS,
strongly upstream seems to be what some (I am not going to make
assumptions about numbers)
On Tue, 2010-08-31 at 20:03 +0100, Piscium wrote:
Some people like everything up-to-date, while others are more
conservative. Fine. Isn't there a middle ground?
Currently there are these repos: updates and updates_testing.
Maybe two more repos could be added: updates_fixes and
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 3:56 PM, Matthew Miller mat...@mattdm.org wrote:
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 01:26:27PM -0400, Arthur Pemberton wrote:
Maybe I was too long winded, or failed to communicate my point: a
stable (bug fix only updates, slow feature release), strongly FOSS,
strongly upstream
On Tue, 2010-08-31 at 15:56 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 01:26:27PM -0400, Arthur Pemberton wrote:
Maybe I was too long winded, or failed to communicate my point: a
stable (bug fix only updates, slow feature release), strongly FOSS,
strongly upstream seems to be what
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 11:26 AM, Bill Nottingham nott...@redhat.com wrote:
It is not meant to be a complaint at you or a request for you to do more
work. It's a complaint at the state of the world. (Why not find the
biggest windmill of all to tilt at?)
I didn't mean for you to think it was a
On Tue, 2010-08-31 at 13:45 -0400, Máirín Duffy wrote:
On Mon, 2010-08-30 at 20:41 -0400, Jon Masters wrote:
Great stuff. And there's more in there too. So the current User_base in
addition to being not very well linked and referenced could hardly be
described as reflecting all of the views
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 8/31/10 9:40 AM, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 7:39 AM, Jesse Keating jkeat...@j2solutions.net
wrote:
An update that changes behavior for the end user would never be
acceptable as an update to a stable release. Only severe
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 4:07 PM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
On Tue, 2010-08-31 at 15:56 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 01:26:27PM -0400, Arthur Pemberton wrote:
Maybe I was too long winded, or failed to communicate my point: a
stable (bug fix only
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 8/31/10 9:40 AM, Thomas Moschny wrote:
2010/8/31 Jesse Keating jkeat...@j2solutions.net:
An update that changes behavior for the end user would never be
acceptable as an update to a stable release. Only severe exceptions
should be made to this
On 29 August 2010 21:15, Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com wrote:
On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 10:38:29 +0100
Piscium grok...@gmail.com wrote:
Please do join in the design team and help them out:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_Design_Team
While I appreciate the arts, I am not good at creating
On 08/30/2010 12:08 PM, Piscium wrote:
While I appreciate the arts, I am not good at creating art, so I am
afraid I would be of no use to the design team.
Providing constructive and directed feedback would certainly count as a
useful contribution. Design team mailing list often has
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08/28/2010 02:37 PM, Till Maas wrote:
And you managed to proper quote! \o/ Now the next step is not to create
very long lines. ;-)
Ugh, I had no idea it was generating that junk. *sigh*
I just filed
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08/28/2010 10:46 PM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
Well my main concern is exactly what you have stated If RH decide
Fedora should go away it would in other words You exist only because
we allow you to exist
The former is a pretty strong
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08/28/2010 09:25 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Jesse Keating wrote:
The cynic in me would expect that the people who want something different
than the fire hose we have now are silently leaving, and those that are
left are going to say they like the
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 12:03 PM, Jesse Keating jkeat...@redhat.com wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08/28/2010 09:25 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Jesse Keating wrote:
The cynic in me would expect that the people who want something different
than the fire hose we have now
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 6:03 PM, Jesse Keating jkeat...@redhat.com wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08/28/2010 09:25 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Jesse Keating wrote:
The cynic in me would expect that the people who want something different
than the fire hose we have now
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 1:45 PM, Thomas Janssen
thom...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 6:03 PM, Jesse Keating jkeat...@redhat.com wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08/28/2010 09:25 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Jesse Keating wrote:
The cynic in me would
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 10:03, Jesse Keating jkeat...@redhat.com wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08/28/2010 09:25 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Jesse Keating wrote:
The cynic in me would expect that the people who want something different
than the fire hose we have now are
On Mon, 2010-08-30 at 12:22 -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
The avalanche has already started, it is too late for the pebbles to vote.
The changes towards a distribution that attracts people who live in
the moment happened a while back, and has been building momentum for
quite some time.
Gerard Braad (gbr...@fedoraproject.org) said:
aggressively
I do not agree this strategy is wise or even the correct way. Certain
Fedora versions dropped hardware support. We can't dictate people wht
they can or can not do. I still know people who run old redhat
releases (5.x) as there was
On Mon, 2010-08-30 at 09:03 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08/28/2010 09:25 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Jesse Keating wrote:
The cynic in me would expect that the people who want something different
than the fire hose we have now are silently
Thomas Janssen thom...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 6:03 PM, Jesse Keating jkeat...@redhat.com wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08/28/2010 09:25 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Jesse Keating wrote:
The cynic in me would expect that the people who want
On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 15:09:06 -0400
Jon Masters jonat...@jonmasters.org wrote:
Every update takes for ever because there
are so many updates. Too many to review each one and see what it
does, and how to maybe test it and provide feedback. Updates runs
just get pushed off longer and
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 12:30, seth vidal skvi...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Mon, 2010-08-30 at 12:22 -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
The avalanche has already started, it is too late for the pebbles to vote.
The changes towards a distribution that attracts people who live in
the moment
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 03:09:06PM -0400, Jon Masters wrote:
Fedora is being ruined by this kind of behavior. You can have progress,
cutting edge, etc. without having to be unstable and unpredictable in
the process.
A lot has been done in the last couple of months in that direction.
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 12:36:42PM -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
We had a distro that was pretty general purpose, worked for servers and
desktops and even laptops. We had a predictable schedule. We had new
technology thanks to rawhide. We had timely bugfixes that didn't sacrifice
stability, as
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 12:36:42PM -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
Why not give QA the time to settle and find out how the new things
work out?
Because the likes of Kevin throw fits whenever we try to insert any QA
time or seem to try and improve the quality of our updates in any way
other
On Mon, 2010-08-30 at 21:56 +0200, Sven Lankes wrote:
As I've said, on systems not directly connected I just don't bother
doing updates ever. I suspect before too long some effort will get
formed to do a more stable version of Fedora
Don't we already have that in F n-1?
Even that isn't
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 21:56:17 +0200,
Sven Lankes s...@lank.es wrote:
Also - and this is a question that I have asked myself and others a
couple of times - if you could implement Fedora the way you want: What
unique selling points are left for Fedora? Fedora is Ubuntu with rpm
sounds
On Mon, 2010-08-30 at 12:36 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
We had a distro that was pretty general purpose, worked for servers
and desktops and even laptops. We had a predictable schedule.
It's called Laissez-faire meets reality. Right now we have a lot of
free market philosophy in Fedora that
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 3:36 PM, Jesse Keating jkeat...@j2solutions.net wrote:
Thomas Janssen thom...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 6:03 PM, Jesse Keating jkeat...@redhat.com wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08/28/2010 09:25 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 16:04:40 -0400
Matthew Miller mat...@mattdm.org wrote:
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 12:36:42PM -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
We had a distro that was pretty general purpose, worked for servers
and desktops and even laptops. We had a predictable schedule. We
had new technology
Once upon a time, Sven Lankes s...@lank.es said:
Also - and this is a question that I have asked myself and others a
couple of times - if you could implement Fedora the way you want: What
unique selling points are left for Fedora? Fedora is Ubuntu with rpm
sounds about as bad as Fedora is
On Fri, 2010-08-27 at 18:49 -0400, Jon Masters wrote:
On Fri, 2010-08-27 at 15:47 -0700, Bob Arendt wrote:
I think it would be much better for Fedora to decide what it *should* be,
specifically what the Fedora userspace should be, and excel at that.
Don't follow the market or worry about
On Mon, 2010-08-30 at 16:01 -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
I like the release schedule of Fedora, but I don't like the idea of each
release continuing to be a rolling update target. I don't really
understand why about six months (or less if you didn't install on
release day) is such a horrible
Jon Masters píše v Po 30. 08. 2010 v 16:13 -0400:
On Mon, 2010-08-30 at 12:36 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
We had a distro that was pretty general purpose, worked for servers
and desktops and even laptops. We had a predictable schedule.
It's called Laissez-faire meets reality. Right now
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 04:01:25PM -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
I guess I've never been concerned about unique selling points. Why
should it be Fedora is Ubuntu with RPM, instead of Ubuntu is Fedora
with DEB? IIRC Fedora came first (and certainly RHL came before
Ubuntu, although Debian was
On Mon, 2010-08-30 at 23:11 +0200, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
Now, if we Fedora should be a distribution that developers enjoy using,
there will be an updates firehose - and most developers won't mind too
much. If Fedora should be a distribution that developers can install on
their grandparents'
Jon Masters wrote:
Why does it have to be one or the other? There are ways to do both with
vitualization, separate stream of packages, multiple versions of the
same thing. Who knows what else. The point is, nobody is saying you
can't take a stable base and add in more recent bits for your area
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 5:01 PM, Chris Adams cmad...@hiwaay.net wrote:
Once upon a time, Sven Lankes s...@lank.es said:
Also - and this is a question that I have asked myself and others a
couple of times - if you could implement Fedora the way you want: What
unique selling points are left for
Jon Masters píše v Po 30. 08. 2010 v 17:17 -0400:
On Mon, 2010-08-30 at 23:11 +0200, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
Now, if we Fedora should be a distribution that developers enjoy using,
there will be an updates firehose - and most developers won't mind too
much. If Fedora should be a
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 11:11:06PM +0200, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
A typical developer wants the dependencies of the software they are
working on to be _very_ up to date - probably not the upstream
development version, but the upstream maintenance version with _all_
current bug fixes. Waiting 6
Matthew Miller píše v Po 30. 08. 2010 v 18:56 -0400:
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 11:11:06PM +0200, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
A typical developer wants the dependencies of the software they are
working on to be _very_ up to date - probably not the upstream
development version, but the upstream
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 15:56, Matthew Miller mat...@mattdm.org wrote:
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 11:11:06PM +0200, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
A typical developer wants the dependencies of the software they are
working on to be _very_ up to date - probably not the upstream
development version, but
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 01:05:34AM +0200, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
No, for rawhide to really be useful, it must be possible to put
unfinished system-wide changes in there: it would be pretty much
impossible to integrate systemd into the distribution on a branch, and
to add it into rawhide only
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 04:30:44PM -0700, darrell pfeifer wrote:
I've moved from being a rawhide junkie to a koji junkie. I've been in that
mode for the last five or six years. My experience has been that rawhide is
most unstable just around alpha time.
That is no longer the case. See:
On Mon, 2010-08-30 at 19:52 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 04:30:44PM -0700, darrell pfeifer wrote:
I've moved from being a rawhide junkie to a koji junkie. I've been in that
mode for the last five or six years. My experience has been that rawhide is
most unstable just
On Mon, 2010-08-30 at 18:58 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 11:11:06PM +0200, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
What Fedora advertised is ..., Features, First - that's a developer's
distro; Fedora was never M million happy users, growing X% annually.
For what it's worth: the
On Sat, 2010-08-28 at 16:40 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
So let me ask you this who's your backup ( given that you at least have
one within Red Hat ) and can a community member step in you're shoes to
full fill your role in your absence?
Dennis is his backup (RH employee) and if need be
On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 23:11:06 +0200, you wrote:
A typical developer wants the dependencies of the software they are
working on to be _very_ up to date - probably not the upstream
development version, but the upstream maintenance version with _all_
current bug fixes. Waiting 6 months for a bug fix
On Mon, 2010-08-30 at 23:56 -0400, Arthur Pemberton wrote:
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 10:09 PM, Gerald Henriksen ghenr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 23:11:06 +0200, you wrote:
A typical developer wants the dependencies of the software they are
working on to be _very_ up to date -
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 8/30/10 8:56 PM, Arthur Pemberton wrote:
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 10:09 PM, Gerald Henriksen ghenr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 23:11:06 +0200, you wrote:
A typical developer wants the dependencies of the software they are
working on
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 8/30/10 1:33 PM, Arthur Pemberton wrote:
Is this still unique?
I believe it is, particularly with our attention to freedom and upstream
relationships, and our connection to arguably /the/ premiere enterprise
Linux offering.
- --
Jesse Keating
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 8/30/10 1:06 PM, Sven Lankes wrote:
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 12:36:42PM -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
Why not give QA the time to settle and find out how the new things
work out?
Because the likes of Kevin throw fits whenever we try to insert
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 12:10 AM, Jon Masters jonat...@jonmasters.org wrote:
On Mon, 2010-08-30 at 23:56 -0400, Arthur Pemberton wrote:
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 10:09 PM, Gerald Henriksen ghenr...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 23:11:06 +0200, you wrote:
A typical developer wants the
1 - 100 of 181 matches
Mail list logo
