On 06/07/2012 01:04 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 06/07/2012 05:29 AM, Ric Wheeler wrote:
Do we really need to create a feature page for that and follow the
approval process?
Seems too heavy weight to me for effectively rebasing a package...
It is certainly not required. Feature process is a
On 06/06/2012 07:56 AM, Robyn Bergeron wrote:
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 12:25 PM, Peter Robinsonpbrobin...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 8:03 PM, Kaleb S. KEITHLEYkkeit...@redhat.com wrote:
On 05/30/2012 02:23 PM, Peter Robinson wrote:
Yes, for the Fedora side of things I think
On 06/07/2012 05:29 AM, Ric Wheeler wrote:
Do we really need to create a feature page for that and follow the
approval process?
Seems too heavy weight to me for effectively rebasing a package...
It is certainly not required. Feature process is a marketing and
coordination tool. Not a
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 12:25 PM, Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 8:03 PM, Kaleb S. KEITHLEY kkeit...@redhat.com
wrote:
On 05/30/2012 02:23 PM, Peter Robinson wrote:
Yes, for the Fedora side of things I think gluster 3.2 is the best
strategy with a
What hoops do I have to jump through, approvals, etc., do I need to
respin glusterfs rpms as glusterfs32 (for 3.2.6, and soon 3.2.7), and
the imminent glusterfs-3.3.0, which would be glusterfs33.
I.e. what is currently glusterfs-3.2.6-2.{fc16,fc17,el6} would become
On 05/30/2012 11:46 AM, Kaleb S. KEITHLEY wrote:
What hoops do I have to jump through, approvals, etc., do I need to
respin glusterfs rpms as glusterfs32 (for 3.2.6, and soon 3.2.7), and
the imminent glusterfs-3.3.0, which would be glusterfs33.
I.e. what is currently
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 11:46:46AM -0400, Kaleb S. KEITHLEY wrote:
What hoops do I have to jump through, approvals, etc., do I need to
respin glusterfs rpms as glusterfs32 (for 3.2.6, and soon 3.2.7),
and the imminent glusterfs-3.3.0, which would be glusterfs33.
I.e. what is currently
On 05/30/2012 12:44 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
To be honest it's a pain in the neck to deal with such packages, and
unless there's an overwhelming need, I can't recommend it. Does any
user really need to parallel install both versions of glusterfs?
No, and in fact that would not work.
On 05/30/2012 01:08 PM, Kaleb S. KEITHLEY wrote:
On 05/30/2012 12:44 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
To be honest it's a pain in the neck to deal with such packages, and
unless there's an overwhelming need, I can't recommend it. Does any
user really need to parallel install both versions of
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 6:08 PM, Kaleb S. KEITHLEY kkeit...@redhat.com wrote:
On 05/30/2012 12:44 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
To be honest it's a pain in the neck to deal with such packages, and
unless there's an overwhelming need, I can't recommend it. Does any
user really need to
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 01:23:42PM -0400, Kaleb S. KEITHLEY wrote:
On 05/30/2012 01:08 PM, Kaleb S. KEITHLEY wrote:
On 05/30/2012 12:44 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
To be honest it's a pain in the neck to deal with such packages, and
unless there's an overwhelming need, I can't recommend
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 11:25 AM, Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com wrote:
I'd be perfectly happy saying we will never ship glusterfs-3.3.x on f16 and
f17, but the reality is that there probably are people who want it.
So you can always do a fedorapeople repository for those that want to
On 05/30/2012 01:25 PM, Peter Robinson wrote:
And FWIW, doing nothing doesn't resolve the glusterfs in EPEL versus
glusterfs in the RHS Channel issue.
That's a different story entirely, and why would you want gluster in
EPEL when it's already in RHEL? What's the difference?
This has been
On 05/30/2012 01:34 PM, Kaleb S. KEITHLEY wrote:
On 05/30/2012 01:25 PM, Peter Robinson wrote:
And FWIW, doing nothing doesn't resolve the glusterfs in EPEL versus
glusterfs in the RHS Channel issue.
That's a different story entirely, and why would you want gluster in
EPEL when it's
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 7:11 PM, Kaleb S. KEITHLEY kkeit...@redhat.com wrote:
On 05/30/2012 01:34 PM, Kaleb S. KEITHLEY wrote:
On 05/30/2012 01:25 PM, Peter Robinson wrote:
And FWIW, doing nothing doesn't resolve the glusterfs in EPEL versus
glusterfs in the RHS Channel issue.
That's a
On 05/30/2012 02:23 PM, Peter Robinson wrote:
Yes, for the Fedora side of things I think gluster 3.2 is the best
strategy with a fedorapeople repo of 3.3 if it's considered worthwhile
for those that wish to play. For gluster 3.3 I suggest a feature page
for F-18 / rawhide. Is it feasible for the
On 05/30/2012 03:03 PM, Kaleb S. KEITHLEY wrote:
On 05/30/2012 02:23 PM, Peter Robinson wrote:
Yes, for the Fedora side of things I think gluster 3.2 is the best
strategy with a fedorapeople repo of 3.3 if it's considered worthwhile
for those that wish to play. For gluster 3.3 I suggest a
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 8:03 PM, Kaleb S. KEITHLEY kkeit...@redhat.com wrote:
On 05/30/2012 02:23 PM, Peter Robinson wrote:
Yes, for the Fedora side of things I think gluster 3.2 is the best
strategy with a fedorapeople repo of 3.3 if it's considered worthwhile
for those that wish to play.
18 matches
Mail list logo