Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On Sun, 2017-10-15 at 09:59 -0700, Gerald B. Cox wrote: > For those of you who were concerned about LastPass: > > https://www.engadget.com/2017/10/13/lastpass-beta-firefox-57-webextension/ > > The beta version is available now - The final version will be ready when > the browser arrives on

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On Mon, 2017-10-16 at 15:03 +0100, James Hogarth wrote: > On 16 October 2017 at 14:58, John Florian wrote: > > On Sun, 2017-10-15 at 09:23 -0700, Gerald B. Cox wrote: > > > people are going to notice is the improved performance and > > > cleaner interface. > > > > Yes!

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On lundi 16 octobre 2017 15:58:32 CEST John Florian wrote: > On Sun, 2017-10-15 at 09:23 -0700, Gerald B. Cox wrote: > > people are going to notice is the improved performance and cleaner > > > > interface. > > Yes! Because of this thread's original message, I pulled 57 into F26 > eager to try

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On 16 October 2017 at 14:58, John Florian wrote: > On Sun, 2017-10-15 at 09:23 -0700, Gerald B. Cox wrote: > > people are going to notice is the improved performance and cleaner > interface. > > > Yes! Because of this thread's original message, I pulled 57 into F26 eager >

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On Sun, 2017-10-15 at 09:23 -0700, Gerald B. Cox wrote: > people are going to notice is the improved performance and cleaner > interface. Yes! Because of this thread's original message, I pulled 57 into F26 eager to try it out (on $dayjob workstation). Now I want it at $home workstation. Is

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

For those of you who were concerned about LastPass: https://www.engadget.com/2017/10/13/lastpass-beta-firefox-57-webextension/ The beta version is available now - The final version will be ready when the browser arrives on November 14th. As I mentioned earlier, for those who want to use a GPLv3

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 7:47 AM, Gerald Henriksen wrote: > Except FF57 is stable (at least no one so far is complaining about it > being otherwise). > > For those who use its plugins then there may be an issue (depending on > how many do a last minute update vs. can't/won't

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On Sun, 15 Oct 2017 15:35:56 +0200, you wrote: >IMHO, it would be reasonable and common sense to either postpone F27 >until FF57 has become stable or to revert the firefox change. Except FF57 is stable (at least no one so far is complaining about it being otherwise). For those who use its

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On 10/13/2017 07:11 PM, nicolas.mail...@laposte.net wrote: Which all means our release planning is too focused on Gnome and not enough thought is put into the roadmap of major non-Gnome desktop apps such as Firefox or Libreoffice. I'd argue that this kind of Firefox change is way more

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On Sat, 2017-10-14 at 04:23 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote: > > Am 13.10.2017 um 18:58 schrieb Simo Sorce: > > On Fri, 2017-10-13 at 09:43 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > > Adam not replying just to you but the general thread. > > What is the point of bringing up all these plugins breakage ? If > >

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

2017-10-13 16:26 GMT+02:00 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek : > Sure, that's what everybody knows. But without going from generalities > to details of a specific extension, we're just speculating idly. Here's another one:

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 12:05 PM, Adam Williamson < adamw...@fedoraproject.org> wrote: > On Fri, 2017-10-13 at 12:58 -0400, Simo Sorce wrote: > > On Fri, 2017-10-13 at 09:43 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > > > On Fri, 2017-10-13 at 14:26 +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > > > On Fri,

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On Fri, 2017-10-13 at 12:58 -0400, Simo Sorce wrote: > On Fri, 2017-10-13 at 09:43 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > > On Fri, 2017-10-13 at 14:26 +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > > On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 02:55:37PM +0100, Peter Oliver wrote: > > > > On Fri, 13 Oct 2017, Zbigniew

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

> Does this update break the entire browser? No, it's more akin to the switch from Gnome 2 to Gnome 3: lots of changes all over the place, old trusted features gone, replacements not totally there and in any case different requiring user adaptation. Which all means our release planning is too

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On Oct 13, 2017 19:00, "Simo Sorce" wrote: We are Fedora and we are First, even when it is painful IMHO. I count for little in the Fedora community, but this is exactly my opinion in this discussion. A. ___ devel mailing list --

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On Fri, 2017-10-13 at 09:43 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Fri, 2017-10-13 at 14:26 +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 02:55:37PM +0100, Peter Oliver wrote: > > > On Fri, 13 Oct 2017, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > > > > > > All the energy devoted to

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On Fri, 2017-10-13 at 18:48 +0200, Robert-André Mauchin wrote: > On vendredi 13 octobre 2017 17:48:51 CEST Adam Williamson wrote: > > On Fri, 2017-10-13 at 15:56 +0100, Tom Hughes wrote: > > > > > On 13/10/17 15:26, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Sure, that's what

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On vendredi 13 octobre 2017 17:48:51 CEST Adam Williamson wrote: > On Fri, 2017-10-13 at 15:56 +0100, Tom Hughes wrote: > > > On 13/10/17 15:26, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > > > > > > Sure, that's what everybody knows. But without going from generalities > > > to details of a specific

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On Fri, 2017-10-13 at 14:26 +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 02:55:37PM +0100, Peter Oliver wrote: > > On Fri, 13 Oct 2017, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > > > > All the energy devoted to this thread would imho be better spent on > > > trying to encourage

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On 13/10/17 16:48, Adam Williamson wrote: On Fri, 2017-10-13 at 15:56 +0100, Tom Hughes wrote: Cookie Monster Seemed to have been removed from AMO and no obvious replacement. I use(d) Self Destructing Cookies, but the page for that one says it's not being rewritten as a webextension and

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On Fri, 2017-10-13 at 10:47 -0500, Michael Cronenworth wrote: > > Is everyone being over-dramatic (per usual)? To take that personally for a minute, well, no, I don't believe I've been over-dramatic at all. I've never suggested anything besides 'maybe we should take a look at whether shipping

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On Fri, 2017-10-13 at 08:44 -0700, Gerald B. Cox wrote: > Adam, can you please use the other thread. This discussion has gotten way > off topic. The other thread I opened is Fx 57 Release Issues. I think that ship sailed long ago, I'm afraid. I can't really 'move' a reply to the other thread,

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On Fri, 2017-10-13 at 15:56 +0100, Tom Hughes wrote: > On 13/10/17 15:26, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > > Sure, that's what everybody knows. But without going from generalities > > to details of a specific extension, we're just speculating idly. > > So lets do a little review of the

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On 10/13/2017 10:40 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: We've chosen not to ship ESR in the past, AIUI, because we think our target audiences generally prefer to get the main Firefox release stream, they don't want the ESR stream. We could change that decision, of course. I don't personally think a

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

Adam, can you please use the other thread. This discussion has gotten way off topic. The other thread I opened is Fx 57 Release Issues. Thanks! On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 8:40 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Fri, 2017-10-13 at 12:29 +0100, Peter Oliver wrote: > > On

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On Fri, 2017-10-13 at 12:29 +0100, Peter Oliver wrote: > On Thu, 12 Oct 2017, Adam Williamson wrote: > > > it sounds like downgrading from 56 to 52 > > (the most recent ESR), aside from the epoch bump it'd require on our > > side, is not straightforward (it seems there were profile changes > >

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 6:31 PM, Gerald B. Cox wrote: > Please use the thread Fx 57 Release Issues. This discussion isn't about the > use of the updates-testing repository for non-update software. Sure, sorry for the digression. ___

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

Please use the thread Fx 57 Release Issues. This discussion isn't about the use of the updates-testing repository for non-update software. On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 8:23 AM, Alexander Ploumistos < alex.ploumis...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 6:04 PM, Athos Ribeiro

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 6:04 PM, Athos Ribeiro wrote: > I maintain a small extension to toggle proxy configurations […] Hi Athos, Does noturno support proxy authentication by any chance ;) ? ___ devel mailing list --

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 01:14:50PM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > All the energy devoted to this thread would imho be better spent on > trying to encourage the authors of popular extensions to update to the > new model, or trying to find alternatives that work with FF57+. >

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On 13/10/17 15:26, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: Sure, that's what everybody knows. But without going from generalities to details of a specific extension, we're just speculating idly. So lets do a little review of the things I have installed in one of my firefox instances that aren't

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 02:55:37PM +0100, Peter Oliver wrote: > On Fri, 13 Oct 2017, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > >All the energy devoted to this thread would imho be better spent on > >trying to encourage the authors of popular extensions to update to the > >new model, > > My

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On Fri, 13 Oct 2017, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: All the energy devoted to this thread would imho be better spent on trying to encourage the authors of popular extensions to update to the new model, My understanding is that the new API lacks capabilities needed to make some extensions

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 02:21:42PM +0200, Martin Stransky wrote: > On 10/13/2017 01:29 PM, Peter Oliver wrote: > >On Thu, 12 Oct 2017, Adam Williamson wrote: > > > >>it sounds like downgrading from 56 to 52 > >>(the most recent ESR), aside from the epoch bump it'd require on our > >>side, is not

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On 10/13/2017 01:29 PM, Peter Oliver wrote: On Thu, 12 Oct 2017, Adam Williamson wrote: it sounds like downgrading from 56 to 52 (the most recent ESR), aside from the epoch bump it'd require on our side, is not straightforward (it seems there were profile changes between 56 and 52). Ouch.

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

Another option could be to ship Fedora 27 with a Firefox 57 prerelease version. This will stop breakage of extensions 2 weeks after Fedora 27 ships (and shipped extensions can be moved to web extension version). On 13 Oct 2017 12:31 pm, "Peter Oliver" < lists.fedoraproject@mavit.org.uk>

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On Thu, 12 Oct 2017, Adam Williamson wrote: it sounds like downgrading from 56 to 52 (the most recent ESR), aside from the epoch bump it'd require on our side, is not straightforward (it seems there were profile changes between 56 and 52). Ouch. Is now a good time to think about how we could

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On Thu, 2017-10-12 at 22:57 +0100, Tom Hughes wrote: > > The biggest issues are NoScript (which is supposedly coming) and Cookie > Monster (which seems to be hopeless) but there are plenty of others. As someone else mentioned, uMatrix is an alternative (in many ways superior) to Noscript, and

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On 12/10/17 22:48, John Florian wrote: On Thu, 2017-10-12 at 19:54 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 09:05:33AM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote: It's true that a number of older extensions will not work. Well, looking at the most popular extensions:

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On Thu, 2017-10-12 at 19:54 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 09:05:33AM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > It's true that a number of older extensions will not work. > > Well, looking at the most popular extensions: > >

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On Thu, 2017-10-12 at 22:37 +0200, nicolas.mail...@laposte.net wrote: > > - Mail original - > De: "Adam Williamson" > > > Yes, but we're a *distributor*. It's our job to mediate change for our > > users, not to just pass it along and wash our hands of it by saying > > upstream was

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

- Mail original - De: "Adam Williamson" > Yes, but we're a *distributor*. It's our job to mediate change for our > users, not to just pass it along and wash our hands of it by saying > upstream was telling them about it. Sure, and Fedora had the choice of - shipping Firefox - shipping

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On Thu, 2017-10-12 at 21:22 +0200, nicolas.mail...@laposte.net wrote: > De: "Adam Williamson" > > > I don't believe anyone > > outside of Firefox enthusiasts and the package maintainer were even > > aware there was an issue to discuss. > > The last 2 or 3 Firefox releases have been adding

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

De: "Adam Williamson" > I don't believe anyone > outside of Firefox enthusiasts and the package maintainer were even > aware there was an issue to discuss. The last 2 or 3 Firefox releases have been adding warnings (and ramping them up) in the Firefox extension panel. I even had a specific

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On Thu, 2017-10-12 at 20:42 +0200, nicolas.mail...@laposte.net wrote: > If Fedora is getting cold feet at the last minute I'd suggest that this is an inaccurate characterization of the issue. I don't believe that 'Fedora' as an entity had even *considered* this situation until the start of this

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On Thu, 2017-10-12 at 11:22 -0700, stan wrote: > Mozilla has been warning about this for over a year in their > development version (nightly), so it shouldn't come as a surprise. For me at least, it is a surprise. I had not heard about this until this mailing list thread. I'm sure it's not a

Re: Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

Also I would be *very* surprised if network or website operators that rely on stuff Mozilla is obsoleting didn't start testing for ESR in the user-agent to adopt specific behaviour, if not this year then next one's when Mozilla kills plugins (Yes they're not supposed to. When did that stop

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 11:42 AM, wrote: > > > If Fedora is getting cold feet at the last minute the best solution would > be to package ESR separately and make it available for people that don't > really want to be "First". It's probable Mozilla will use the next

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 09:05:33AM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > It's true that a number of older extensions will not work. Well, looking at the most popular extensions: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-GB/firefox/extensions/?sort=users hardly any of them are parked as "compatible with firefox 57+".

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

- Mail original - De: "Matthew Miller" > Also we might be able to forward-port patches from the latest ESR. Though that would not be overly nice to upstream. They took the pain of creating, documenting and supporting two specific update streams to coordinate this change, I'm quite

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On 10/12/2017 10:52 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: > I think that may not realistically be possible, though, as 56 is not > being made an ESR, AFAICT, and it sounds like downgrading from 56 to 52 > (the most recent ESR), aside from the epoch bump it'd require on our > side, is not straightforward (it

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 09:05:33 -0700 Kevin Fenzi wrote: > On 10/12/2017 01:08 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > In practical terms, FF57 disables all extensions. > > I think thats a bit overstated. I'm running FF57 here with a bunch of > extensions that work with it. I agree

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 10:52:52AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > However, I don't think this means we MUST ship 57. Talking about > 'security backports' in the abstract is all well and good, but no-one > even seems to have stated yet that there *are* any important security > fixes in 57. Even if

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On Thu, 2017-10-12 at 10:16 -0700, Thomas Daede wrote: > On 10/12/2017 02:54 AM, Till Hofmann wrote: > > Yes, but that wasn't branded as all-new, better-than-ever Firefox (which > > it is), that intentionally breaks stuff which is directly visible by the > > end-user. An update that breaks the

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On 10/12/2017 02:54 AM, Till Hofmann wrote: > Yes, but that wasn't branded as all-new, better-than-ever Firefox (which > it is), that intentionally breaks stuff which is directly visible by the > end-user. An update that breaks the majority of extensions is very hard > to sell for a stable

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On Thu, 2017-10-12 at 05:35 -0700, Gerald B. Cox wrote: > On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 12:33 AM, Reindl Harald > wrote: > > > --- Comment #13 from Martin Stransky --- > > Sorry but the update stays there unless there's a general agreement it > > should >

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On 10/12/2017 01:08 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > In practical terms, FF57 disables all extensions. I think thats a bit overstated. I'm running FF57 here with a bunch of extensions that work with it. It's true that a number of older extensions will not work. One thing to look at is to go to

Re: The Code of Conduct applies to all Fedora participation [was Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?]

On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 10:15 AM, Matthew Miller wrote: > Wrong. The Code of Conduct applies to all participation in Fedora. > > As I understand the history, your messages are on moderation because > ... well, you keep doing this. That's not okay. If you had sent this >

The Code of Conduct applies to all Fedora participation [was Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?]

Wrong. The Code of Conduct applies to all participation in Fedora. As I understand the history, your messages are on moderation because ... well, you keep doing this. That's not okay. If you had sent this just to me privately as a way of blowing off steam, I might try to personally talk you down.

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

Harald, you've had plenty of warnings. When you go off like this, it stops the conversation from being about the policies and problems. Don't do that. It is not productive or constructive. At the very, very minimum, it is a terrible way to get the results you want. But it is also against the

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 12:33 AM, Reindl Harald wrote: > --- Comment #13 from Martin Stransky --- > Sorry but the update stays there unless there's a general agreement it > should > be removed. If you feel so please file FESCo ticket for that. >

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On 10/12/2017 11:32 AM, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 11:22:52AM +0200, Till Hofmann wrote: Actually, as a regular desktop user, I'd be surprised if I got the FF57 with a regular update without upgrading to the latest Fedora release. I don't think FF57 should be in F26 at

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 11:22:52AM +0200, Till Hofmann wrote: > Actually, as a regular desktop user, I'd be surprised if I got the FF57 with > a regular update without upgrading to the latest Fedora release. I don't > think FF57 should be in F26 at all. Looking at the updates in bodhi, F26 was

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On 10/11/2017 10:58 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: I don't get the whole kerfuffle about FF57 being beta: F27 is in beta now too, and it's the time to test what will be in the relased version, and using a pre-release of a package seems to be a better way to do this than using some old

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On Thursday, 12 October 2017 at 10:56, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 10:48:45AM +0200, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski > wrote: > > On Thursday, 12 October 2017 at 10:08, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > > In practical terms, FF57 disables all extensions. > > > > > > I had

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 10:53:18AM +0200, Martin Stransky wrote: > On 10/12/2017 10:48 AM, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote: > >On Thursday, 12 October 2017 at 10:08, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > >>In practical terms, FF57 disables all extensions. > >> > >>I had forgotten how unusable the web

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 10:48:45AM +0200, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote: > On Thursday, 12 October 2017 at 10:08, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > In practical terms, FF57 disables all extensions. > > > > I had forgotten how unusable the web has become without NoScript ... > > Have you

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On Thursday, 12 October 2017 at 10:44, Felix Schwarz wrote: [...] > However I know at least one somewhat popular addon (NoScript) which is planned > to have a release just before the Firefox 27 release > (https://noscript.net/getit#devel). So the push to F26 updates-testing really > hurts some

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On 10/12/2017 10:48 AM, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote: On Thursday, 12 October 2017 at 10:08, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: In practical terms, FF57 disables all extensions. I had forgotten how unusable the web has become without NoScript ... Have you tested with the latest noscript?

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On Thursday, 12 October 2017 at 10:08, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > In practical terms, FF57 disables all extensions. > > I had forgotten how unusable the web has become without NoScript ... Have you tested with the latest noscript? 5.1.1 claims to support Fx57 and is in updates-testing, too.

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

Am 11.10.2017 um 21:08 schrieb Martin Stransky: > I believed that the update-testing repository is intended for testing and it's > used by power users who can handle that, exclude the package from testing if > needed, downgrade broken package and so on. > > I'm surprised that people use

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

In practical terms, FF57 disables all extensions. I had forgotten how unusable the web has become without NoScript ... Anyway, I wouldn't advise anyone else to update to this version if you use extensions at all. Rich. -- Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On 10/11/2017 09:42 PM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: [] It is something we forget a lot.. but is a reason why older maintainers of XYZ software (Mozilla, X11, gcc, kernel, etc) would make sure that a heads up email about a major version change goes out. If you put out a heads up that

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 5:36 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Wed, 2017-10-11 at 17:13 -0700, Gerald B. Cox wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 12:08 PM, Martin Stransky > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > I'm surprised that people use

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On Wed, 2017-10-11 at 17:13 -0700, Gerald B. Cox wrote: > On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 12:08 PM, Martin Stransky > wrote: > > > > > > > I'm surprised that people use updates-testing for stable/production > > machines, have problem with handling the update and act like newbies.

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 12:08 PM, Martin Stransky wrote: > > > I'm surprised that people use updates-testing for stable/production > machines, have problem with handling the update and act like newbies. If > you can't handle that, don't use that. Fedora is really a bleeding

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 10:07:44PM +0100, James Hogarth wrote: >Yes I saw the commit but that is my very point.  >I was pretty sure that only scratch builds could be carried out from non >release branches but you get something into a compose you needed to merge >to master or a

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On Wed, 2017-10-11 at 20:58 +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > OTOH, let's consider two points: one, FF57 is disruptive, and two, > FF57 will be released as an update in Fedora when Mozilla make the > release, as specified by our policy for FF updates. Uh, what policy is that? AFAICS

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On 2017-10-11, 14:38 GMT, Martin Stransky wrote: > And no, I'm not going to create COPR builds for that - it does > not contain required NSS/NSPR packages and building from git > is broken. I don’t think I want to get immersed into merit of this discussion, but let me just note that: a)

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On 11 Oct 2017 4:48 pm, "Pierre-Yves Chibon" wrote: On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 04:34:52PM +0100, James Hogarth wrote: >On 11 October 2017 at 16:23, Gerald B. Cox wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 7:23 AM, Till Hofmann >

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 12:52:11PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Wed, 2017-10-11 at 15:42 -0400, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > > On 11 October 2017 at 15:08, Martin Stransky wrote: > > > On 10/11/2017 07:26 PM, Gerald B. Cox wrote: > > > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 11, 2017

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On Wed, 2017-10-11 at 15:42 -0400, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > On 11 October 2017 at 15:08, Martin Stransky wrote: > > On 10/11/2017 07:26 PM, Gerald B. Cox wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 10:04 AM, Heiko Adams wrote: > > > > > > > Am

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On 11 October 2017 at 15:08, Martin Stransky wrote: > On 10/11/2017 07:26 PM, Gerald B. Cox wrote: >> >> On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 10:04 AM, Heiko Adams wrote: >> >>> Am Mittwoch, den 11.10.2017, 07:53 -0700 schrieb Gerald B. Cox: >>> >>> By definition

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On 10/11/2017 07:26 PM, Gerald B. Cox wrote: On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 10:04 AM, Heiko Adams wrote: Am Mittwoch, den 11.10.2017, 07:53 -0700 schrieb Gerald B. Cox: By definition BETA software is never intended to be pushed to stable. Fx 57 is BETA. When the STABLE

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 1:37 PM Gerald B. Cox wrote: > You need to read my entire statement in context. That is not what I > meant. As I replied to Heiko: > > "My opinion however is common sense dictates that you don't put anything > in updates-testing unless you intend to push

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 10:24 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > > > On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 1:05 PM Heiko Adams wrote: > >> Am Mittwoch, den 11.10.2017, 07:53 -0700 schrieb Gerald B. Cox: >> >> By definition BETA software is never intended to be pushed to

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 10:04 AM, Heiko Adams wrote: > Am Mittwoch, den 11.10.2017, 07:53 -0700 schrieb Gerald B. Cox: > > By definition BETA software is never intended to be pushed to stable. Fx > 57 is BETA. When the STABLE version is released, then it can go into >

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 1:05 PM Heiko Adams wrote: > Am Mittwoch, den 11.10.2017, 07:53 -0700 schrieb Gerald B. Cox: > > By definition BETA software is never intended to be pushed to stable. Fx > 57 is BETA. When the STABLE version is released, then it can go into >

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 9:58 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Wed, 2017-10-11 at 07:53 -0700, Gerald B. Cox wrote: > > > Martin, this is what is stated at the very top of the doc you referenced: > > "The *updates-testing* repository > > > It's worth noting that page

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

* Gerald B. Cox [11/10/2017 07:53] : > > By definition BETA software is never intended to be pushed to stable. We've sometimes pushed beta versions of software, usually when that version is more stable than the previous stable release. I'm all for enforcing rules on what goes to the updates and

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

Am Mittwoch, den 11.10.2017, 07:53 -0700 schrieb Gerald B. Cox: > By definition BETA software is never intended to be pushed to > stable. Fx 57 is BETA. When the STABLE version is released, then it > can go into updates-testing. Not before. Again, that is the purpose > of RAWHIDE. > > > >

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On Wed, 2017-10-11 at 07:53 -0700, Gerald B. Cox wrote: > On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 7:00 AM, Martin Stransky > wrote: > > > > >It's *updates*-testing repo and software in it should not be 'planned', > > > but basically 'ready' for Fedora. > > >If you want testing repo

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 04:34:52PM +0100, James Hogarth wrote: >On 11 October 2017 at 16:23, Gerald B. Cox wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 7:23 AM, Till Hofmann > wrote: > >The very first sentence of the page you linked above:

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On 11 October 2017 at 16:23, Gerald B. Cox wrote: > > > On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 7:23 AM, Till Hofmann > wrote: > >> >> >> The very first sentence of the page you linked above: >> >>> The updates-testing repository, also referred to as Test Updates, >>>

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 7:23 AM, Till Hofmann wrote: > > > The very first sentence of the page you linked above: > >> The updates-testing repository, also referred to as Test Updates, >> contains updates scheduled to be released for Branched pre-releases (after >> the

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 7:00 AM, Martin Stransky wrote: > >It's *updates*-testing repo and software in it should not be 'planned', >> but basically 'ready' for Fedora. >>If you want testing repo for experienced users, use COPR. >> > > I don't see it that way. Is that

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 6:32 AM, Martin Stransky wrote: > On 10/11/2017 03:17 PM, Gerald B. Cox wrote: > >> Was this on purpose? Fx 57 is BETA, and I was under the impression that >> BETA software was for RAWHIDE. >> > > It's going to be stable in one month. Fx 57 release

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On 10/11/2017 03:17 PM, Gerald B. Cox wrote: Was this on purpose? Fx 57 is BETA, and I was under the impression that BETA software was for RAWHIDE. Yes, I understand there is an annotation NOT to push Fx 57 to stable - but I thought that was the purpose of updates testing... software there is

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 10:26 AM Till Hofmann wrote: > > The very first sentence of the page you linked above: > > The updates-testing repository, also referred to as Test Updates, > contains updates scheduled to be released for Branched pre-releases (after > the

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On 10/11/2017 04:00 PM, Martin Stransky wrote: On 10/11/2017 03:52 PM, Tomasz Torcz wrote: On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 03:32:07PM +0200, Martin Stransky wrote: On 10/11/2017 03:17 PM, Gerald B. Cox wrote: Was this on purpose?  Fx 57 is BETA, and  I was under the impression that BETA software

  1   2   >