At 03:32 PM 10/24/2006, Jesse Keating wrote:
On Tuesday 24 October 2006 18:21, Mike McCarty wrote:
These are interesting stats, and indicate that Linux may now be
crossing the gap. I belive most offices are still firmly MS product
houses, and a move to Linux would not even be considered. I
On Tuesday 24 October 2006 10:19, Mike McCarty wrote:
Gene Heskett wrote:
[snip]
Maybe the question we should be asking is: Can we do this? We don't
have the number of people that Debian Security has on supporting old
releases.. and because we have fallen so far behind with everything..
can we
On Tuesday 24 October 2006 10:23, Mike McCarty wrote:
Matthew Miller wrote:
[snip]
Using the Chasm marketing model [*], without Legacy, Fedora is only a
viable solution for Early Adopters and of dubious value to the second
Pragmatist group. However, Fedora has been enough of a success that
On 10/24/06, Mike McCarty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
On 10/20/06, Matthew Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Oct 20, 2006 at 09:36:15AM -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
The problem is that we are just beat. Jesse has a kid, a release
cycle, a new knee, and
On Tuesday 24 October 2006 18:21, Mike McCarty wrote:
These are interesting stats, and indicate that Linux may now be
crossing the gap. I belive most offices are still firmly MS product
houses, and a move to Linux would not even be considered. I know
that every time I see a request for a
Jesse Keating wrote:
On Thursday 19 October 2006 11:44, Matthew Miller wrote:
I think this is really unfortunate, because it makes a big gap in the
Fedora ecosystem. This will be largely filled by migration to RHEL-rebuild
distros like CentOS, which is well and good (and particularly
On Fri, 20 Oct 2006, Eric Rostetter wrote:
Quoting Jesse Keating [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
And for a while Pekka was posting a list of all the work needed items. Was
that not usable? I don't remember the discussion of a mailing list for
bugs,
Yes, it was, but as I said, I've not seen one for a
Quoting Pekka Savola [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Me not having sent the reminder doesn't mean that the bug list hasn't
been updated. It has -- at least semi-regularly (once 1-2 days).
Yep, but my point was that people like me, and I've often said on this
list I'm basically lazy, want a push rather
Quoting Matthew Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I know that personally I haven't been able to contribute the amount of time
I'd like to make this succeed. But I have a full-time job and a young child,
and am mildly active in umpteen other projects. Legacy support is hard work,
and really needs two or
On 10/20/06, Nils Breunese (Lemonbit) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Miller wrote:
I know that personally I haven't been able to contribute the amount
of time
I'd like to make this succeed. But I have a full-time job and a
young child,
and am mildly active in umpteen other projects.
Quoting Jesse Keating [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Without a functioning lifespan of over a year, Fedora is only practically
useful as an enthusiast, bleeding-edge distro. That's only supposed to be
_part_ of its mission.
As noted, I disagree with the above statement.
Here is what I think can happen.
Quoting Jesse Keating [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Thursday 19 October 2006 12:04, Matthew Miller wrote:
So RHL has been the hold-up there? In that case, *definitely* time to end
RHL support; RHL != Fedora anyway.
IMHO, Fedora Legacy was started for RHL, not FC, and the name is shouldn't
dictate
On Friday 20 October 2006 10:48, Eric Rostetter wrote:
IMHO, Fedora Legacy was started for RHL, not FC, and the name is shouldn't
dictate policy, the original purpose should dictate policy.
Actually no. Fedora Legacy came from when Fedora was created. Fedora
Alternatives and Extras were
On Friday 20 October 2006 10:52, Eric Rostetter wrote:
You're misunderstanding me; I meant RHL has been the hold-up for
switching to the Extras build infrastructure.
Can't we somehow run the two build systems in parallel? Use the old one
for RHL, and test the new one out for FC releases?
On Friday 20 October 2006 11:36, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
I just have enough time currently to answer questions for people on
#fedora-legacy, trying to put in 10-20 hours to qa a package because I
don't know how much qa it really takes to ship a fix (especially after
all the negative
On Friday 20 October 2006 12:21, Jesse Keating wrote:
Yikes, 10-20 hours seems CRAZY. It built, patch applied, app launches,
push it as a testing update. (sure you could do a LITTLE more testing, but
trying to fit 20 hours of heavy qa on an app is just silly)
I should note that the only way
On Fri, Oct 20, 2006 at 10:59:39AM -0400, Jesse Keating wrote:
Only if we agree to split RHL updates from Fedora updates and nothold one
up for the other.
This is another benefit of one bug per distro release. FC3 packages
shouldn't hold up FC4, for that matter.
--
Matthew Miller
On Friday 20 October 2006 11:36, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
On 10/20/06, Jesse Keating [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Friday 20 October 2006 10:48, Eric Rostetter wrote:
IMHO, Fedora Legacy was started for RHL, not FC, and the name is
shouldn't dictate policy, the original purpose should
On Fri, Oct 20, 2006 at 10:59:13AM -0400, Jesse Keating wrote:
Where we need help is testing packages, reporting and vetting issues (not
just 'hey this CVE was filed, does it effect us?' Actually LOOK at the
package and package sources to see, perhaps provide a patch? Where are you
On Fri, Oct 20, 2006 at 09:36:15AM -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
The problem is that we are just beat. Jesse has a kid, a release
cycle, a new knee, and a lot of other stuff on his real job. The other
people who have been doing stuff have also had 'stuff happen', and
temporary schedule
On Fri, Oct 20, 2006 at 08:58:33AM -0400, James Kosin wrote:
E) See if any Fedora Core engineers are interested in, out of the goodness
of their hearts, building updates for their packages in Legacy when it
isn't much extra work -- and enabling them to easily do so.
The only problem
Quoting Jesse Keating [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Friday 20 October 2006 10:52, Eric Rostetter wrote:
You're misunderstanding me; I meant RHL has been the hold-up for
switching to the Extras build infrastructure.
Can't we somehow run the two build systems in parallel? Use the old one
for RHL,
On Friday 20 October 2006 13:58, Eric Rostetter wrote:
First, my interest doesn't really fit there. It is in testing what is
in updates-testing (which is nothing). If there was something in
updates-testing to test, I would test it and report the results.
Its tough to get to updates-testing
Quoting Matthew Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Fedora people repeatedly state that the distribution is great for users
beyond the tech-enthusiast Earlier Adopters. But without Legacy, it's really
not true.
It is only good for tech-savy people who can upgrade outside of pre-set
windows. Legacy
On Fri, Oct 20, 2006 at 01:19:08PM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
My email archive alone goes back
into 1998 here. Yes, there are backups, and I do them rather religiously
at the feet of a gal named amanda, but it would still be a weeks work to
get stuff back to the Just Works(TM) state here
Quoting Jesse Keating [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Friday 20 October 2006 13:58, Eric Rostetter wrote:
First, my interest doesn't really fit there. It is in testing what is
in updates-testing (which is nothing). If there was something in
updates-testing to test, I would test it and report the
Quoting Jesse Keating [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
But I don't have the time to go crawling through bugzilla looking to
see what needs to be tested, and I've not seen a mailing to this list
lately with a list of things that needed testing. In other words, I
Please read the above.
And for a while
On Friday 20 October 2006 15:16, Eric Rostetter wrote:
Yes, if you want me to help, please add me to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You've been added.
--
Jesse Keating
Release Engineer: Fedora
pgpYLRQYfyfNc.pgp
Description: PGP signature
--
fedora-legacy-list mailing list
fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com
On 10/20/06, Matthew Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Oct 20, 2006 at 09:36:15AM -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
The problem is that we are just beat. Jesse has a kid, a release
cycle, a new knee, and a lot of other stuff on his real job. The other
people who have been doing stuff
http://lwn.net/Articles/204722/
This is subscriber-only content for two weeks, but the gist is: there's a
whole lotta unpatched vulnerabilities in FC4. Can we really pretend this is
an ongoing concern?
I know that personally I haven't been able to contribute the amount of time
I'd like to make
On Thursday 19 October 2006 11:44, Matthew Miller wrote:
When Jesse Keating worked at Pogo, that was largely true, but with his
duties at RH and with his new kid, it doesn't seem to be the case anymore.
I'm sure this is not Jesse's fault -- there needs to be commitment from
above, and that's
On Thu, 19 Oct 2006, Matthew Miller wrote:
A) Kill off RHL now. Stop trying to do stuff there when we just don't have
the man power or the volunteers.
B) Move to using Extras infrastructure for building packages. They're
ready for us for FC3 and FC4.
So RHL has been the hold-up there? ...
On Thu, Oct 19, 2006 at 08:57:31PM +0300, Pekka Savola wrote:
On Thu, 19 Oct 2006, Matthew Miller wrote:
A) Kill off RHL now. Stop trying to do stuff there when we just don't
have
the man power or the volunteers.
B) Move to using Extras infrastructure for building packages. They're
ready
On Thursday 19 October 2006 13:57, Pekka Savola wrote:
As a result, there are very few people left who care enough about
FC3/FC4 updates. There just aren't enough people to do the job, and
the machinery to do the job has been way too heavyweight for a long
time. I guess one could still move
On 10/19/06, Jesse Keating [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thursday 19 October 2006 11:44, Matthew Miller wrote:
When Jesse Keating worked at Pogo, that was largely true, but with his
duties at RH and with his new kid, it doesn't seem to be the case anymore.
I'm sure this is not Jesse's fault --
On Thu, Oct 19, 2006 at 05:07:30PM -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
D) Move to Core style plan. Figure out what core packages we are going
to backport for, and what packages we are just going to push the
latest stuff for.
Mozilla - Seamonkey
Gaim - Gaim latest
Yeah.
And also, if at all
36 matches
Mail list logo
