On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 08:19:04AM -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 10:09:58PM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> FWIW, I'm not sure that's really true. The fedora-review tool makes it
> very easy to do a low-effort review and still produce a pretty
> checklist.
On Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 10:09:58PM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> Package review is public and happens in the review bug. We also
> require (in the sense of having a strong custom, maybe even if it's
> not written anywhere explicitly), a checklist style review. This allows
If we want
On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 10:53 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> Apparently, ABRT reports crashes for packages not part of Fedora.
Thanks, I'd guessed that much, but I wanted some confirmation.
> A possible fix would be to look at the signing key in the RPM database
> and report
On Mon, 30 Nov 2015 09:53:24 +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> Apparently, ABRT reports crashes for packages not part of Fedora.
Not only that, but those shortened reports are also submitted for locally
modified software. Such as someone hacking the software during development
or breaking it during
On 29 November 2015 at 21:53, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> On Sáb, 2015-11-28 at 14:56 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > On Sat, 28 Nov 2015 21:11:48 +
> > James Hogarth wrote:
> >
> > > I was flicking through package review requests to see if anything
> > >
On 11/28/2015 11:53 PM, Alexander Ploumistos wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 12:21 AM, Till Maas wrote:
>> On Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 12:10:07AM +0200, Alexander Ploumistos wrote:
>>> How come datagrepper lists FAF reports for the package from 2015-07-20,
>>> when it hadn't
Alexander Ploumistos wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 10:53 AM, Florian Weimer
> wrote:
>> Apparently, ABRT reports crashes for packages not part of Fedora.
>
> Thanks, I'd guessed that much, but I wanted some confirmation.
>
>> A possible fix would be to look at the
On Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 09:53:40PM +, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> On Sáb, 2015-11-28 at 14:56 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > On Sat, 28 Nov 2015 21:11:48 +
> > James Hogarth wrote:
> >
> > > I was flicking through package review requests to see if anything
> > > jumped
On Sáb, 2015-11-28 at 14:56 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Nov 2015 21:11:48 +
> James Hogarth wrote:
>
> > I was flicking through package review requests to see if anything
> > jumped out as interesting when I saw this:
> >
> >
How come datagrepper lists FAF reports for the package from 2015-07-20,
when it hadn't been included yet?
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
On Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 12:10:07AM +0200, Alexander Ploumistos wrote:
> How come datagrepper lists FAF reports for the package from 2015-07-20,
> when it hadn't been included yet?
Who said it was not included? It was until now. It will be gone from the
mirrors after the next update push.
Regards
On Sat, Nov 28, 2015 at 09:11:48 +, James Hogarth wrote:
> I was flicking through package review requests to see if anything jumped
> out as interesting when I saw this:
>
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1280422
>
> Thought I'd take a look as I hadn't had time to review it
On Sat, 28 Nov 2015 21:11:48 +
James Hogarth wrote:
> I was flicking through package review requests to see if anything
> jumped out as interesting when I saw this:
>
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1280422
>
> Thought I'd take a look as I hadn't had
On Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 12:21 AM, Till Maas wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 12:10:07AM +0200, Alexander Ploumistos wrote:
>> How come datagrepper lists FAF reports for the package from 2015-07-20,
>> when it hadn't been included yet?
>
> Who said it was not included? It was
I was flicking through package review requests to see if anything jumped
out as interesting when I saw this:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1280422
Thought I'd take a look as I hadn't had time to review it when it first
appeared and the requester had fixed the github breaking
Hi,
On Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 3:27 AM, Till Maas wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 28, 2015 at 09:11:48 +, James Hogarth wrote:
>
>> I was flicking through package review requests to see if anything jumped
>> out as interesting when I saw this:
>>
>>
16 matches
Mail list logo