Re: Freeze break request: refine the filterlist stuff (make it an imagelist using productmd)

2016-11-21 Thread Adam Williamson
On Mon, 2016-11-21 at 21:05 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > On Mon, 21 Nov 2016 19:46:27 -0800 > Adam Williamson wrote: > > > The main problem here is the 'archive' filterlist is still pretty big, > > over 20MiB. I don't want to push the fedfind changes out to the public

Freeze break request: refine the filterlist stuff (make it an imagelist using productmd)

2016-11-21 Thread Adam Williamson
The main problem here is the 'archive' filterlist is still pretty big, over 20MiB. I don't want to push the fedfind changes out to the public until it's smaller. With this change the imagelist files are all tiny, under 250KiB. pr #26 is an alternative to this which just extends the exclusion list

Re: Freeze break request: fix f24 references in f25-updates-testing atomic updates

2016-11-21 Thread Patrick Uiterwijk
+1 On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 4:44 PM, Peter Robinson wrote: > +1 from me! > > > On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 4:43 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: >> From f55c6f20bc5676f62a50535dbe5c1d1eb74aae4b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 >> From: Kevin Fenzi >> Date: Mon,

Re: Freeze break request: fix f24 references in f25-updates-testing atomic updates

2016-11-21 Thread Peter Robinson
+1 from me! On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 4:43 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > From f55c6f20bc5676f62a50535dbe5c1d1eb74aae4b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Kevin Fenzi > Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2016 16:42:19 + > Subject: [PATCH] fix fedora-25-updates-testing to have

Freeze break request: fix f24 references in f25-updates-testing atomic updates

2016-11-21 Thread Kevin Fenzi
From f55c6f20bc5676f62a50535dbe5c1d1eb74aae4b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Kevin Fenzi Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2016 16:42:19 + Subject: [PATCH] fix fedora-25-updates-testing to have correct f25 references for bodhi atomic updates composing ---

Re: Cert penning, Certs and related

2016-11-21 Thread Colin Walters
On Fri, Oct 14, 2016, at 08:42 AM, Colin Walters wrote: > > Anyways, there's a higher level question here - you're arguing > for pinning to Digicert rather than a custom CA. That seems good > enough, but I think we need a recovery mechanism in case Digicert > explodes. > > So I'd propose pinning