On 11/06/2012 05:35 AM, Garrett Holmstrom wrote:
On 2012-11-05 12:22, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 11/05/2012 07:52 PM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
A crit path update that affects, say, two packages and nothing else,
could be approved by default as well. Many of the crit path
features however
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 7:10 PM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson
johan...@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/01/2012 06:09 PM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
We were thinking with a few folks more about Self contained feature
but yeah, there's a lack of real definition.
Other thing is - these Self contained features could
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 7:34 PM, Matthew Miller mat...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Thu, Nov 01, 2012 at 02:09:21PM -0400, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
That sounds good. Maybe recast those ideas as three levels?
- Critical Path Feature
- Other Enhancement Feature
- New Leaf Feature
We were
On Mon, Nov 05, 2012 at 05:45:14PM +0100, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
I think Leaf is better than Self contained, since it's unlikely for
the feature to have zero outside dependencies. I think it'd be fine for
such a feature to rely on small changes to existing packages (version
updates, say).
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 7:34 PM, Matthew Miller mat...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Mon, Nov 05, 2012 at 05:45:14PM +0100, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
I think Leaf is better than Self contained, since it's unlikely for
the feature to have zero outside dependencies. I think it'd be fine for
such a
On Mon, Nov 05, 2012 at 07:55:26PM +0100, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
Here, I think you're smooshing together two of the three levels I'd
suggested, putting both non-crit-path enhancements and new leaf
functionality into one category. Is that correct?
Yes, the self-contained wording covers both
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 8:38 PM, Matthew Miller mat...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Mon, Nov 05, 2012 at 07:55:26PM +0100, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
Here, I think you're smooshing together two of the three levels I'd
suggested, putting both non-crit-path enhancements and new leaf
functionality
On 11/05/2012 07:52 PM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
A crit path update that affects, say, two packages and nothing else,
could be approved by default as well. Many of the crit path
features however affect a large or extremely large package set (e.g.
the sysv-systemd script migration), in which case
On 2012-11-05 12:22, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 11/05/2012 07:52 PM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
A crit path update that affects, say, two packages and nothing else,
could be approved by default as well. Many of the crit path
features however affect a large or extremely large package set (e.g.
On Thu, 2012-11-01 at 09:56 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Thu, Nov 01, 2012 at 09:24:52AM +0200, Panu Matilainen wrote:
There are features and features... some of them are new versions of
leafnode packages or a just bunch of new packages which nothing else
depends on, and some of them
On 11/01/2012 07:08 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Thu, 2012-11-01 at 09:56 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Thu, Nov 01, 2012 at 09:24:52AM +0200, Panu Matilainen wrote:
There are features and features... some of them are new versions of
leafnode packages or a just bunch of new packages which
- Original Message -
On Thu, Nov 01, 2012 at 10:08:39AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
I was rather thinking we can simply take advantage of the critical
path
definition here. After all, when we came up with the critpath, the
idea
was it was a general concept which could be
On 11/01/2012 06:09 PM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
We were thinking with a few folks more about Self contained feature
but yeah, there's a lack of real definition.
Other thing is - these Self contained features could be approved
implicitly once are announced on devel list (in cooperation with
- Original Message -
On 11/01/2012 06:09 PM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
We were thinking with a few folks more about Self contained
feature
but yeah, there's a lack of real definition.
Other thing is - these Self contained features could be approved
implicitly once are announced
On Thu, Nov 01, 2012 at 02:09:21PM -0400, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
That sounds good. Maybe recast those ideas as three levels?
- Critical Path Feature
- Other Enhancement Feature
- New Leaf Feature
We were thinking with a few folks more about Self contained feature
but yeah, there's a
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 7:34 PM, Matthew Miller mat...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Thu, Nov 01, 2012 at 02:09:21PM -0400, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
That sounds good. Maybe recast those ideas as three levels?
- Critical Path Feature
- Other Enhancement Feature
- New Leaf Feature
We were
- Original Message -
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 7:34 PM, Matthew Miller
mat...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Thu, Nov 01, 2012 at 02:09:21PM -0400, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
That sounds good. Maybe recast those ideas as three levels?
- Critical Path Feature
- Other Enhancement
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 7:45 PM, Jaroslav Reznik jrez...@redhat.com wrote:
- Original Message -
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 7:34 PM, Matthew Miller
mat...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Thu, Nov 01, 2012 at 02:09:21PM -0400, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
That sounds good. Maybe recast those ideas
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 2:45 PM, Jaroslav Reznik jrez...@redhat.com wrote:
- Original Message -
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 7:34 PM, Matthew Miller
mat...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Thu, Nov 01, 2012 at 02:09:21PM -0400, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
That sounds good. Maybe recast those ideas
On Thu, Nov 01, 2012 at 07:41:21PM +0100, drago01 wrote:
I think Leaf is better than Self contained, since it's unlikely for the
feature to have zero outside dependencies. I think it'd be fine for such a
feature to rely on small changes to existing packages (version updates,
say).
I'd
On Thu, 2012-11-01 at 19:50 +0100, drago01 wrote:
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 7:45 PM, Jaroslav Reznik jrez...@redhat.com wrote:
- Original Message -
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 7:34 PM, Matthew Miller
mat...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Thu, Nov 01, 2012 at 02:09:21PM -0400, Jaroslav
The other thing that we mustn't forget are major changes that aren't
put through the feature process, but slip in via the back door.
Rich.
--
Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones
virt-p2v converts physical machines to virtual machines. Boot with a
live
On Thu, Nov 01, 2012 at 08:13:57PM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
The other thing that we mustn't forget are major changes that aren't
put through the feature process, but slip in via the back door.
That's where the critpath vs. other enhancement distinction comes in -- for
critpath we can be
On 11/01/2012 08:13 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
The other thing that we mustn't forget are major changes that aren't
put through the feature process, but slip in via the back door.
As far as I know you are not obligated to participate in the feature
process and what do you exactly define as
On Thu, 2012-11-01 at 21:28 +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 11/01/2012 08:13 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
The other thing that we mustn't forget are major changes that aren't
put through the feature process, but slip in via the back door.
As far as I know you are not obligated to
On Thu, Nov 01, 2012 at 02:43:00PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
I think I once proposed that FESCo should formally have the ability to
declare that a given change ought to be a feature and force it through
the feature process, but that proposal was rejected.
I think that requiring the feature
26 matches
Mail list logo
