On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 5:16 AM wrote:
> I understand them. The point is, for them and even us (the installer)
> is work on BTRFS not a priority. It's something we can't benefit on
> RHEL and it could be almost completely replaced by LVM + xfs solution.
> However, it still giving us bugs and
On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 2:26 PM Laura Abbott wrote:
>
> I don't think we need someone to join the team per se. All we need is
> someone who we can assign bugs to and have them work through the issues,
> whether that's development or working with upstream to test. We have
> a fedora-btrfs bug
On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 7:16 AM wrote:
>
> On Sat, 2019-08-24 at 07:31 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Fri, 2019-08-23 at 19:00 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
> > > On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 1:17 PM Adam Williamson
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > So, there was recently a Thing where btrfs installs
On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 11:16 AM Laura Abbott wrote:
>
> On 8/23/19 9:00 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 1:17 PM Adam Williamson
> > wrote:
> >
> >> So, there was recently a Thing where btrfs installs were broken, and
> >> this got accepted as a release blocker:
> >>
> >>
On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 10:48 PM Chris Murphy wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 1:44 PM Justin Forbes wrote:
> >
> > All of this, the criteria, and the UI support for btrfs are from the
> > many years old proposal to make btrfs the default filesystem. In the
> > beginning, it was not ready,
On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 1:44 PM Justin Forbes wrote:
>
> All of this, the criteria, and the UI support for btrfs are from the
> many years old proposal to make btrfs the default filesystem. In the
> beginning, it was not ready, but did show promise. This proposal came
> up for several releases
Hi all,
Today's an important day on the Fedora 31 schedule[1], with several
significant cut-offs. First of all today is
the Bodhi activation point [2]. That means that from now all Fedora 31
packages must be submitted to
updates-testing and pass the relevant requirements[3] before they will be
On Mon, 2019-08-26 at 19:33 +0200, Frantisek Zatloukal wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 4:53 PM Kamil Paral wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 2:42 PM Justin Forbes
> > wrote:
> >
> > > From my standpoint, ext4 and xfs are the primary supported root
> > > filesystems. I don't think that
On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 4:53 PM Kamil Paral wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 2:42 PM Justin Forbes
> wrote:
>
>> From my standpoint, ext4 and xfs are the primary supported root
>> filesystems. I don't think that anything else should be release
>> blocking.
>
>
> If this is the case, we can
On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 2:42 PM Justin Forbes wrote:
> From my standpoint, ext4 and xfs are the primary supported root
> filesystems. I don't think that anything else should be release
> blocking.
If this is the case, we can explicitly list the supported file systems in
criteria. The list
OLD: Fedora-31-20190825.n.0
NEW: Fedora-31-20190826.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:1
Dropped images: 0
Added packages: 1
Dropped packages:0
Upgraded packages: 38
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 78.57 KiB
Size of dropped packages:0 B
Size
Yes, F31.
I just found out there are similar problems in F30 Workstation too. I'll
try to gather more information.
Regards,
Lailah.
On Mon, 26 Aug 2019 at 15:32, wrote:
> On Mon, 2019-08-26 at 15:21 +0200, Silvia Sánchez wrote:
> > The problem is that it wasn't my computer and I'm still
On Mon, 2019-08-26 at 15:21 +0200, Silvia Sánchez wrote:
> The problem is that it wasn't my computer and I'm still searching who
> had this problem to ask for more details.
Just for confirmation: such user was using Rawhide (or now F31), yes?
Thanks,
Alessio
Hello all,
Alessio, the user I mentioned didn't touch SELinux to fix this issue.
That's why I said I don't think it's related. I'm not saying they are the
same bug, only saying there was a similar issue and it didn't seem to be
related to SELinux. And in that issues, the options were greyed
No missing expected images.
Failed openQA tests: 13/152 (x86_64), 1/2 (arm)
New failures (same test not failed in Fedora-31-20190825.n.0):
ID: 436097 Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso desktop_notifications_postinstall
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/436097
Old failures (same test
On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 8:00 PM Chris Murphy wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 1:17 PM Adam Williamson
> wrote:
>
> > So, there was recently a Thing where btrfs installs were broken, and
> > this got accepted as a release blocker:
> >
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1733388
>
>
Sure, sorry, I forgot.
Cheers,
Lailah
On Mon, 26 Aug 2019 at 14:23, wrote:
> On Mon, 2019-08-26 at 14:18 +0200, Silvia Sánchez wrote:
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > I had a bug report I thought it could be important but now it's too
> > late, so let's leave it for the next week.
>
>
> In the
On Mon, 2019-08-26 at 14:18 +0200, Silvia Sánchez wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I had a bug report I thought it could be important but now it's too
> late, so let's leave it for the next week.
In the meanwhile you can share it in the mailing list, isn't it?
Ciao,
A.
OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20190825.n.0
NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20190826.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:0
Dropped images: 0
Added packages: 6
Dropped packages:0
Upgraded packages: 78
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 13.67 MiB
Size of dropped packages:0 B
Hello,
I had a bug report I thought it could be important but now it's too late,
so let's leave it for the next week.
Regards,
Lailah
On Mon, 26 Aug 2019 at 04:06, Adam Williamson
wrote:
> Hi folks! I'm proposing we cancel the QA meeting tomorrow, as there
> isn't a lot for the agenda. We
No missing expected images.
Compose FAILS proposed Rawhide gating check!
22 of 45 required tests failed, 15 results missing
openQA tests matching unsatisfied gating requirements shown with **GATING**
below
Unsatisfied gating requirements that could not be mapped to openQA tests:
FAILED:
21 matches
Mail list logo
