Le mardi 24 août 2010 à 16:38 -0400, Bill Nottingham a écrit :
> Lennart Poettering (mzerq...@0pointer.de) said:
> > > PACKAGING
> > > - Guidelines for packaging systemd units shall be formalized.
> >
> > As pointed out elsewhere, I'd avoid this for F14.
>
> Then we should put "don't" in the gu
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 o
Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Ben Boeckel (maths...@gmail.com) said:
>> I actually have a bug to file about that. The setting for NM_CONTROLLED
>> is still set even if NetworkManager isn't installed. It (or Ananconda)
>> should scrub the configs before installing the settings used during the
>> instal
Ben Boeckel (maths...@gmail.com) said:
> I actually have a bug to file about that. The setting for NM_CONTROLLED
> is still set even if NetworkManager isn't installed. It (or Ananconda)
> should scrub the configs before installing the settings used during the
> install.
IMO, NM_CONTROLLED should
Dan Williams wrote:
> What things need to be easier about the cli bits that the network
> scripts get right? No doubt there are some, but would you mind filing
> them as enhancement requests or bugs so we have some goals to hit?
>
> In the end, ifup/ifdown should also still work for connections
On Thu, Sep 02, 2010 at 10:40:21AM -0500, Dan Williams wrote:
> as they always have been. There's nothing special about ifcfg files
> that NetworkManager really changes; we've gone to great effort to
> interpret ifcfg files almost exactly like ifup/ifdown interpret them.
One million thank yous fo
On Fri, 2010-08-27 at 19:58 +0100, Mark Chappell wrote:
> On 27/08/2010, Tomasz Torcz wrote:
> > NM doesn't (yet?) support:
> > - bridges: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=558982
> > - vlans: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=492377
>
> That would explain why I couldn't fig
On 08/31/2010 10:40 PM, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 8:57 AM, Jon Masters 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 ab
On Fri, 2010-08-27 at 13:02 +0200, Till Maas wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 11:43:41AM +0200, Thomas Moschny wrote:
> > 2010/8/27 Jesse Keating :
> > > That's strange. I use it on my laptop, which has a caching local DNS
> > > server (dnsmasq) and it works just fine. I do have a script in
> > >
On Thu, 2010-08-26 at 15:57 -0400, Jon Masters wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-08-26 at 11:17 -0800, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 10:29 AM, Jon Masters
> > wrote:
> > > Great. It works fine on a laptop, in general. But on a
> > > desktop/server/workstation that is connected for weeks at
On Fri, 2010-08-27 at 10:54 -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Chuck Anderson said:
> > NM can use old style /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifcfg-*. Can't
> > you just write those out from your %post section? Or, if you want all
> > the NM features like WPA wireless config, you can
On 09/01/2010 05:55 PM, Till Maas wrote:
> Sorry, I was too imprecise. I meant that the "unlicensed" contributions
> can only be relicensed to another default license by the board. And if
> Red Hat is lost to some evil company, as far as I understand, the Fedora
> project might not have this power
On Wed, Sep 01, 2010 at 09:53:15AM -0400, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
> 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 se
On 01/09/10 19:53, Brendan Jones wrote:
> What is the end game here? Is Fedora lacking contributors?
Like all areas of life, you win some you lose some.
--
Regards,
Frank Murphy
UTF_8 Encoded
Friend of Fedora
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/
If you define a desired target, then you know who to survey that you
haven't even gotten as a user yet and understand better how to win them
over and expand your userbase...
But I don't think we even have agreement amongst contributors that we
want to expand the userbase (w
On Wed, Sep 01, 2010 at 12:13:04PM -0400, Arthur Pemberton wrote:
> >> > I don't think that's fair at all. Fedora is unique in a lot of ways,
> >> > and a waterfall of updates isn't essential to that uniqueness.
> >> List those ways please, aside from the relationship with Red Hat/CentOS.
> > Why b
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 10:51 AM, Matthew Miller wrote:
> 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 peo
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 05:43:26PM -0400, Arthur Pemberton wrote:
> Exactly, the key idea is "The niche described is a kind of mix of
> attributes that appeal to entirely different types of
> users/contributors".
It's not a crazy point. :) But I disagree that the niche is as niche-like as
you're m
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 fa
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 b
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 8/31/10 9:40 AM, Thomas Moschny wrote:
> 2010/8/31 Jesse Keating :
>> 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 t
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 4:07 PM, Adam Williamson 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 updates, slow fea
-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
> 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
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
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 11:26 AM, Bill Nottingham 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 complaint. If I
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 b
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 3:56 PM, 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 wh
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 updates
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)
Jeff Spaleta (jspal...@gmail.com) said:
> On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 10:31 AM, Bill Nottingham 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
> deve
* 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 contrib
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 updates_t
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 10:31 AM, Bill Nottingham 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 responsible for. M
Jeff Spaleta (jspal...@gmail.com) said:
> On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 9:34 AM, Emmanuel Seyman
> 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 in
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 9:34 AM, Emmanuel Seyman
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 package.
Yep.. gourmet does th
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 al
* 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'
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
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 12:32 PM, Adam Williamson 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 want to *
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 whic
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, wh
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 8:57 AM, Jon Masters 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 features. They even do self
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 us
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 08:40:29 -0800,
Jeff Spaleta 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 that happen bet
2010/8/31 Jesse Keating :
> 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 are cost prohibitive
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 7:39 AM, Jesse Keating 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 from a new upstream
On 08/31/2010 12:26 PM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 07:05, Rahul Sundaram 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 are doing
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 an
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 07:05, Rahul Sundaram 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 myself.
>
>
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. On
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.
> > > >
> > > > th
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 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
-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 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
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
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 wh
-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
>>
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 won't be ok after 2-3 weeks in updates-testing
I hope you are k
...
> 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
On Tue, 31 Aug 2010, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 00:45:49 -0400,
> Arthur Pemberton 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 ha
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 00:45:49 -0400,
Arthur Pemberton 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? That's
a prett
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. I
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 relea
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 br
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 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
>>> alr
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 9:36 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
> "Thomas Janssen" 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 technology thanks to rawhide. We had timely
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 li
On 08/30/2010 07:22 PM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 10:03, 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 someth
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
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 1:11 AM, Jesse Keating wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 8/30/10 9:50 PM, Arthur Pemberton wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 12:36 AM, Jesse Keating
>> wrote:
>>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>
>>> On 8/30/10 1:33 PM, Ar
On Mon, 2010-08-30 at 22:33 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 8/30/10 10:23 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > Wow, and everyone gets categorical again. You can disagree with people,
> > but this is a bit different. Yes, amazingly, things do matter on
On Tue, 2010-08-31 at 00:10 -0400, Jon Masters wrote:
> > 6 months for new features in a fast paced distro?
>
> You know, compared to almost any other Operating System out there, 6
> months is warp speed. I'd rather have fewer features in my stable
> install that worked just right, then get shiny
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 8/30/10 10:23 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> Wow, and everyone gets categorical again. You can disagree with people,
> but this is a bit different. Yes, amazingly, things do matter on a six
> month timeframe in the 'real world' (whatever that is). Exa
On Mon, 2010-08-30 at 15:09 -0400, Jon Masters wrote:
> Instead,
> we have people so opposed to a little sanity and so scared of 6 months
> wait - like anything really matters in that small a timeframe in the
> *real* world
Wow, and everyone gets categorical again. You can disagree with people,
bu
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 8/30/10 9:50 PM, Arthur Pemberton wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 12:36 AM, Jesse Keating
> wrote:
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> On 8/30/10 1:33 PM, Arthur Pemberton wrote:
>>> Is this still unique?
>>
>> I believe it i
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 8/30/10 9:48 PM, 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?
>
Developers put new features
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 8/30/10 9:45 PM, Arthur Pemberton wrote:
> So far the only brokeness I have had in all of F13 is with `seabios-bin`.
People judge brokeness in different ways. For some it's out right
functioning stopping, such as the repeated problems with bind vs
On Sun, 2010-08-29 at 15:57 +0800, Gerard Braad wrote:
> > 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.
Yes, we can. In fact that's more or less what a distr
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 12:36 AM, Jesse Keating
wrote:
> -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 argu
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 12:25 AM, Jesse Keating
wrote:
> -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
>> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 23:11:06 +0200, you wrote:
>>>
A typical developer
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 12:10 AM, Jon Masters wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-08-30 at 23:56 -0400, Arthur Pemberton wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 10:09 PM, Gerald Henriksen
>> wrote:
>> > On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 23:11:06 +0200, you wrote:
>> >
>> >>A typical developer wants the dependencies of the softwa
-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
-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
F
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 8/30/10 4:50 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
> 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
>> imposs
-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 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 _
On Mon, 2010-08-30 at 23:56 -0400, Arthur Pemberton wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 10:09 PM, Gerald Henriksen 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 - probably no
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 10:09 PM, Gerald Henriksen 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 - probably not the upstream
>>development version, but the upstream maintenance ve
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 17:33:33 -0400,
Arthur Pemberton wrote:
>
> Well for one, if there is nothing different mission wise between
> Fedora and Ubuntu, but Ubuntu gets more attention from desktop users,
> then people might as well just all use Ubuntu.
Despite being derived from Debian, the U
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
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
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
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 unstabl
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:
http
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 on
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 15:56, Matthew Miller 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 the upstre
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 upstrea
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 current statement on the Fedora "target audience"
includes: "
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
1 - 100 of 415 matches
Mail list logo
