Re: thunderbird-24.0.2 reverted - why? (Use the commit log..., Luke)
On 09/24/2013 03:16 AM, Michael J Gruber wrote: Hi there, I can see that thunderbird 24 had been built successfully and then reverted on the fc18 branch (and others). The git commit log and the spec changelog say Revert to 17.0.8 and nothing else. I do understand that more than a successful build is necessary for a package to be pushed, but can we please agree on putting some substantial information on why (not just what) into the git log or change log? Good luck getting people here to actually care. Spec description, git commit message, then bodhi update description: three different places to say the same thing in different words. As frustrating as it is, people just don't want to be bothered with this duplication. This is understandable, and most FLOSS projects only require a good commit message to go along with the change. As the British Academy once said, it is preferable to accept what ten thousand people say, than to try to correct what ten thousand people say. Alex -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: thunderbird-24.0.2 reverted - why? (Use the commit log..., Luke)
On 09/26/2013 07:05 AM, Michael J Gruber wrote: Maybe we'll find a way to use git more gittish one day. If the git commit messages or notes automated the process of generating a spec changelog or bodhy comments people would be happily filling them in, I guess! Abso-fornicating-lutely. This topic is regularly recurring on this list. Maybe in 136 releases, we may get this agreed upon and fixed. Alex -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: thunderbird-24.0.2 reverted - why? (Use the commit log..., Luke)
Jan Horak venit, vidit, dixit 24.09.2013 16:00:
On 09/24/2013 10:16 AM, Michael J Gruber wrote:
Hi there,
I can see that thunderbird 24 had been built successfully and then
reverted on the fc18 branch (and others). The git commit log and the
spec changelog say
Revert to 17.0.8
and nothing else. I do understand that more than a successful build is
necessary for a package to be pushed, but can we please agree on putting
some substantial information on why (not just what) into the git log
or change log?
As a guidance, in many git based project, the following standard for git
messages has proven useful:
1st line: short description of what
1st paragraph: long description of what along the lines of:
So far, foo does bar. Change froz so that it does baz.
2nd paragraph (or mixed in with 2nd): answer why
The problem with bar is this. baz solves the problem by doing that.
This information could also be in bugzilla and linked to from the git
log or changelog, of course. All of this is easier than answering
e-mails or posts, and better for record keeping anyways.
Cheers,
Michael
We've decided to revert package because it broke dependencies with
thunderbird-lightning. Decision to rebase package to 24 was made a bit
in a hurry and since we wasn't able to rebase to lightning 2.6 fast
enough we decide to use 17.0.9 ESR to keep our users secure. We're
trying to deliver security updates as fast as we can because we think
that's most important for users. I'm a bit unsure if keeping max version
(ie. Requires: thunderbird %{thunderbird_next_version}) for dependent
packages is fruitful here because older plugin doesn't make Thunderbird
unusable, it only disables addons which is not compatible with newer
version (a nuisance but at least security issues are fixed) and this
affect only some users.
For the next rebase time (Thunderbird 31?), I'll consider update to
another 24.0.X ESR to make transition more smooth. So sorry for
confusion and thanks everyone who let us know by karma.
Thanks for the info, Jan.
I guess I shouldn't open the can of worms labelled do (not) package
non-binary extensions as rpm ;)
I had missed the bodhi comment, but the above explains everything well.
Maybe we'll find a way to use git more gittish one day. If the git
commit messages or notes automated the process of generating a spec
changelog or bodhy comments people would be happily filling them in, I
guess!
Cheers,
Michael
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
thunderbird-24.0.2 reverted - why? (Use the commit log..., Luke)
Hi there, I can see that thunderbird 24 had been built successfully and then reverted on the fc18 branch (and others). The git commit log and the spec changelog say Revert to 17.0.8 and nothing else. I do understand that more than a successful build is necessary for a package to be pushed, but can we please agree on putting some substantial information on why (not just what) into the git log or change log? As a guidance, in many git based project, the following standard for git messages has proven useful: 1st line: short description of what 1st paragraph: long description of what along the lines of: So far, foo does bar. Change froz so that it does baz. 2nd paragraph (or mixed in with 2nd): answer why The problem with bar is this. baz solves the problem by doing that. This information could also be in bugzilla and linked to from the git log or changelog, of course. All of this is easier than answering e-mails or posts, and better for record keeping anyways. Cheers, Michael -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: thunderbird-24.0.2 reverted - why? (Use the commit log..., Luke)
Michael J Gruber michaeljgruber+fedora-li...@gmail.com writes: Hi there, I can see that thunderbird 24 had been built successfully and then reverted on the fc18 branch (and others). The git commit log and the spec changelog say Revert to 17.0.8 and nothing else. I do understand that more than a successful build is necessary for a package to be pushed, but can we please agree on putting some substantial information on why (not just what) into the git log or change log? yeah, almost every single package has that problem. Which is ridiculous. -- Nikola -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: thunderbird-24.0.2 reverted - why? (Use the commit log..., Luke)
On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 10:16 AM, Michael J Gruber michaeljgruber+fedora-li...@gmail.com wrote: Hi there, I can see that thunderbird 24 had been built successfully and then reverted on the fc18 branch (and others). The git commit log and the spec changelog say Revert to 17.0.8 and nothing else. What happened here is that 24 caused broken deps so the maintainers probably reverted to get the security fixes out faster while stuff is being sorted out. And yes I agree that commit messages should be more verbose. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: thunderbird-24.0.2 reverted - why? (Use the commit log..., Luke)
Am 24.09.2013 11:39, schrieb drago01: What happened here is that 24 caused broken deps so the maintainers probably reverted to get the security fixes out faster while stuff is being sorted out. And yes I agree that commit messages should be more verbose. The bodhi comments say that thunderbird-lightning dep was broken. But it just needs to be updated to version 2.6 and everything should work fine again. -- Regards, Heiko Adams signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: thunderbird-24.0.2 reverted - why? (Use the commit log..., Luke)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Le 24/09/2013 12:29, Heiko Adams a écrit : The bodhi comments say that thunderbird-lightning dep was broken. But it just needs to be updated to version 2.6 and everything should work fine again. /me really likes the just needs ! As simple as pressing the green button. Remi. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iEYEARECAAYFAlJBcu8ACgkQYUppBSnxahhDBwCg1fBgCtoeqqPSNz0poOuTmXYL 3eUAnizVPY/WlDQPxLYCVCr65fuBbbXR =pTzg -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: thunderbird-24.0.2 reverted - why? (Use the commit log..., Luke)
Am 24.09.2013 10:16, schrieb Michael J Gruber: I can see that thunderbird 24 had been built successfully and then reverted on the fc18 branch (and others). The git commit log and the spec changelog say Revert to 17.0.8 and nothing else. I do understand that more than a successful build is necessary for a package to be pushed, but can we please agree on putting some substantial information on why (not just what) into the git log or change log? especially in cases where the packgage is working with a lot of IMAP accounts and a archive of some hundret thousand mails back to 2003 Sep 17 18:21:32 Updated: thunderbird-24.0-1.fc19.x86_64 Sep 21 14:42:39 Updated: thunderbird-24.0-2.fc19.x86_64 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: thunderbird-24.0.2 reverted - why? (Use the commit log..., Luke)
Am 24.09.2013 12:29, schrieb Heiko Adams: Am 24.09.2013 11:39, schrieb drago01: What happened here is that 24 caused broken deps so the maintainers probably reverted to get the security fixes out faster while stuff is being sorted out. And yes I agree that commit messages should be more verbose. The bodhi comments say that thunderbird-lightning dep was broken. But it just needs to be updated to version 2.6 and everything should work fine again. and that is why ist *is wrong* to give negative karma because some extension is not updated - who says that the extension RPM is relevant for all users? signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: thunderbird-24.0.2 reverted - why? (Use the commit log..., Luke)
Am 24.09.2013 12:35, schrieb Reindl Harald: and that is why ist *is wrong* to give negative karma because some extension is not updated - who says that the extension RPM is relevant for all users? I'd even say it's wrong to unpush an update just because of *one* negative feedback. Regardless if it's wrong to give negative feedback because of some broken extensions. -- Regards, Heiko Adams -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: thunderbird-24.0.2 reverted - why? (Use the commit log..., Luke)
On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 12:35:47 +0200, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote: and that is why ist *is wrong* to give negative karma because some extension is not updated - who says that the extension RPM is relevant for all users? No, updates that break dependencies should not be pushed except in extreme emergencies. The dependent packages should get fixed and the whole bunch put into the same update. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: thunderbird-24.0.2 reverted - why? (Use the commit log..., Luke)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Le 24/09/2013 12:35, Reindl Harald a écrit : and that is why ist *is wrong* to give negative karma because some extension is not updated - who says that the extension RPM is relevant for all users? I don't agree. Broken dep are not acceptable in stable release. Remi. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iEYEARECAAYFAlJBloAACgkQYUppBSnxahibGACgjOOGCxLIxZn3KL5tBJjD3enc /3QAni3QwCMVQgXoN1kcDuxgxZJy/qAU =DXCc -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: thunderbird-24.0.2 reverted - why? (Use the commit log..., Luke)
Am 24.09.2013 15:41, schrieb Remi Collet: Le 24/09/2013 12:35, Reindl Harald a écrit : and that is why ist *is wrong* to give negative karma because some extension is not updated - who says that the extension RPM is relevant for all users? I don't agree. Broken dep are not acceptable in stable release if one person maintains thunderbird and the other one lightning how do you imagine that both packages are built at the same moment and get the same karma? this is a organisation problem and again: a broken depdendency for lightning is *never* a reason to give thunderbird bad karma - you do not need the lightning RPM at all, install the extension as most others are not in the repos from mozilla.org and even if both packages are built at the same time there are more using TB and giving positive karma because they simply do not have a dep-problem and so you can't make the push synchron in most cases that's why --skip-broken exists signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: thunderbird-24.0.2 reverted - why? (Use the commit log..., Luke)
On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 3:50 PM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote: Am 24.09.2013 15:41, schrieb Remi Collet: Le 24/09/2013 12:35, Reindl Harald a écrit : and that is why ist *is wrong* to give negative karma because some extension is not updated - who says that the extension RPM is relevant for all users? I don't agree. Broken dep are not acceptable in stable release if one person maintains thunderbird and the other one lightning how do you imagine that both packages are built at the same moment and get the same karma? People can talk to each other or give commit access to each others packages. this is a organisation problem and again: a broken depdendency for lightning is *never* a reason to give thunderbird bad karma - s/never/always/ ... We shouldn't even allow updates to go through (even updates-testing) with broken deps. Every update should have to pass autoqa's depcheck before it gets pushed at all. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: thunderbird-24.0.2 reverted - why? (Use the commit log..., Luke)
On 09/24/2013 10:16 AM, Michael J Gruber wrote:
Hi there,
I can see that thunderbird 24 had been built successfully and then
reverted on the fc18 branch (and others). The git commit log and the
spec changelog say
Revert to 17.0.8
and nothing else. I do understand that more than a successful build is
necessary for a package to be pushed, but can we please agree on putting
some substantial information on why (not just what) into the git log
or change log?
As a guidance, in many git based project, the following standard for git
messages has proven useful:
1st line: short description of what
1st paragraph: long description of what along the lines of:
So far, foo does bar. Change froz so that it does baz.
2nd paragraph (or mixed in with 2nd): answer why
The problem with bar is this. baz solves the problem by doing that.
This information could also be in bugzilla and linked to from the git
log or changelog, of course. All of this is easier than answering
e-mails or posts, and better for record keeping anyways.
Cheers,
Michael
We've decided to revert package because it broke dependencies with
thunderbird-lightning. Decision to rebase package to 24 was made a bit
in a hurry and since we wasn't able to rebase to lightning 2.6 fast
enough we decide to use 17.0.9 ESR to keep our users secure. We're
trying to deliver security updates as fast as we can because we think
that's most important for users. I'm a bit unsure if keeping max version
(ie. Requires: thunderbird %{thunderbird_next_version}) for dependent
packages is fruitful here because older plugin doesn't make Thunderbird
unusable, it only disables addons which is not compatible with newer
version (a nuisance but at least security issues are fixed) and this
affect only some users.
For the next rebase time (Thunderbird 31?), I'll consider update to
another 24.0.X ESR to make transition more smooth. So sorry for
confusion and thanks everyone who let us know by karma.
--
jh
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: thunderbird-24.0.2 reverted - why? (Use the commit log..., Luke)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Le 24/09/2013 15:50, Reindl Harald a écrit : Am 24.09.2013 15:41, schrieb Remi Collet: Le 24/09/2013 12:35, Reindl Harald a écrit : and that is why ist *is wrong* to give negative karma because some extension is not updated - who says that the extension RPM is relevant for all users? I don't agree. Broken dep are not acceptable in stable release if one person maintains thunderbird and the other one lightning how do you imagine that both packages are built at the same moment and get the same karma? this is a organisation problem and again: I agree on the organisation problem, but only on that. a broken depdendency for lightning is *never* a reason to give thunderbird bad karma - you do not need the lightning RPM at all, install the extension as most others are not in the repos from mozilla.org Yes. You can also use Thunderbird from mozilla.org, libreoffice from ... And switch from Fedora to LFS. First a reminder: we have an update policy which explicitly explain why we should not update, to not break things like that in a stable release. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Updates_Policy So (as far as security bug are fixed) it is absolutely fine to keep Thunderbird 17.0.x in Fedora 18/19. Ok. Mozilla stuff have an exception and update to each major version (which make sense for Firefox, but probably not for Thunderbird, as we only provide the ESR version) and even if both packages are built at the same time there are more using TB and giving positive karma because they simply do not have a dep-problem and so you can't make the push synchron in most cases In such case this is the responsibility of the xulrunner or thunderbird owner to rebuild all the packages which need to be and to publish all the packages in a single update. that's why --skip-broken exists Definitively not acceptable. Remi. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iEYEARECAAYFAlJBn1cACgkQYUppBSnxahi+RACgnka4Ag24WVqYrF2250pvyjgA 3OkAoN1fmTMXbWofA4qW7rcg0VUV4JyC =PTpm -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: thunderbird-24.0.2 reverted - why? (Use the commit log..., Luke)
On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 2:39 AM, drago01 drag...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 10:16 AM, Michael J Gruber
michaeljgruber+fedora-li...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi there,
I can see that thunderbird 24 had been built successfully and then
reverted on the fc18 branch (and others). The git commit log and the
spec changelog say
Revert to 17.0.8
and nothing else.
What happened here is that 24 caused broken deps so the maintainers
probably reverted to get the security fixes out faster while stuff
is being sorted out.
And yes I agree that commit messages should be more verbose.
I almost opened a bug on the broken dep issue when I managed to solve
it locally. I was fighting with this last night but after I installed
the latest build of sqlite thunderbird 24 installed without any
issues.
It's really strange because the problem was with sqlite, not
thunderbird but sqlite was rebuilt by its maintainer to fix this
problem.
The real root cause of the broken deps is kind of bugging me:
From sqlite's spec file:
%define realver 3080002
# Provide full package version
Provides: sqlite = %{fullver}
From various parts of thunderbird's spec fie:
%if %{?system_sqlite}
%define sqlite_version 3.7.13
# The actual sqlite version (see #480989):
%global sqlite_build_version %(pkg-config --silence-errors
--modversion sqlite3 2/dev/null || echo 65536)
%endif
---
%if %{?system_sqlite}
Requires: sqlite = %{sqlite_build_version}
%endif
So it's like something went wrong a long time ago and nobody took a
few minutes to sit down and fix it.. ?
Unrelated: I also had to manually install the latest builds of
libselinux and keyutils (also built yesterday) because I was getting
multiarch problems for other things as well.
Hope this helps.
Dan
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: thunderbird-24.0.2 reverted - why? (Use the commit log..., Luke)
Le 24/09/2013 16:00, Jan Horak a écrit :
... I'm a bit unsure if keeping max version
(ie. Requires: thunderbird %{thunderbird_next_version}) for dependent
packages is fruitful here ...
FYI: Already droped from Enigmail spec file.
But this is a bit specific, as Enigmail doesn't use anymore anything
from Thunderbird API and is now mostly a pure xul app (except a small
.so to wrapp some system call).
From install.rdf:
em:minVersion17.0/em:minVersion
em:maxVersion99.0/em:maxVersion
Remi.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: thunderbird-24.0.2 reverted - why? (Use the commit log..., Luke)
Am 24.09.2013 16:00, schrieb Jan Horak:
We've decided to revert package because it broke dependencies with
thunderbird-lightning. Decision to rebase
package to 24 was made a bit in a hurry and since we wasn't able to rebase to
lightning 2.6 fast enough we decide
to use 17.0.9 ESR to keep our users secure. We're trying to deliver security
updates as fast as we can because we
think that's most important for users. I'm a bit unsure if keeping max
version (ie. Requires: thunderbird
%{thunderbird_next_version}) for dependent packages is fruitful here because
older plugin doesn't make Thunderbird
unusable, it only disables addons which is not compatible with newer version
(a nuisance but at least security
issues are fixed) and this affect only some users.
For the next rebase time (Thunderbird 31?), I'll consider update to another
24.0.X ESR to make transition more
smooth. So sorry for confusion and thanks everyone who let us know by karma
thank you for having now a unsupported TB24 on my machine which works without
any problem and does not see security updates until TB31 which takes months
in case i do not want to risk damage my profile
that is how you satisfy testers well instead update the extension
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: thunderbird-24.0.2 reverted - why? (Use the commit log..., Luke)
On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 4:31 PM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote:
Am 24.09.2013 16:00, schrieb Jan Horak:
We've decided to revert package because it broke dependencies with
thunderbird-lightning. Decision to rebase
package to 24 was made a bit in a hurry and since we wasn't able to rebase
to lightning 2.6 fast enough we decide
to use 17.0.9 ESR to keep our users secure. We're trying to deliver security
updates as fast as we can because we
think that's most important for users. I'm a bit unsure if keeping max
version (ie. Requires: thunderbird
%{thunderbird_next_version}) for dependent packages is fruitful here because
older plugin doesn't make Thunderbird
unusable, it only disables addons which is not compatible with newer version
(a nuisance but at least security
issues are fixed) and this affect only some users.
For the next rebase time (Thunderbird 31?), I'll consider update to another
24.0.X ESR to make transition more
smooth. So sorry for confusion and thanks everyone who let us know by karma
thank you for having now a unsupported TB24 on my machine which works without
any problem and does not see security updates until TB31
That's not what he wrote ... calm down and (re)read his mail.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: thunderbird-24.0.2 reverted - why? (Use the commit log..., Luke)
On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 15:50:22 +0200, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote: if one person maintains thunderbird and the other one lightning how do you imagine that both packages are built at the same moment and get the same karma? There is a process for this. The t-bird maintainer gives the lightning maintainer a heads up and does the t-bird build. The lightning maintainer does a build override (to get the t-bird package into the set of packages used when doing bulds) and builds lightning. Then the lightning maintainer sets up a bohdi update with both t-bird and lightning in it. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: thunderbird-24.0.2 reverted - why? (Use the commit log..., Luke)
Am 24.09.2013 19:06, schrieb Bruno Wolff III: On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 15:50:22 +0200, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote: if one person maintains thunderbird and the other one lightning how do you imagine that both packages are built at the same moment and get the same karma? There is a process for this. The t-bird maintainer gives the lightning maintainer a heads up and does the t-bird build. The lightning maintainer does a build override (to get the t-bird package into the set of packages used when doing bulds) and builds lightning. Then the lightning maintainer sets up a bohdi update with both t-bird and lightning in it. So in this case the process seems to be failed or not initiated. -- Regards, Heiko Adams signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: thunderbird-24.0.2 reverted - why? (Use the commit log..., Luke)
Heiko Adams wrote: So in this case the process seems to be failed or not initiated. This process has worked great in the past. It was just a minor mistake on the maintainers part for pushing the update early. No harm done. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: thunderbird-24.0.2 reverted - why? (Use the commit log..., Luke)
On 09/24/2013 05:09 AM, Remi Collet wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Le 24/09/2013 12:29, Heiko Adams a écrit : The bodhi comments say that thunderbird-lightning dep was broken. But it just needs to be updated to version 2.6 and everything should work fine again. /me really likes the just needs ! As simple as pressing the green button. Remi. Yeah, that was the crux of the matter here - lots of build issues with Lightning 2.6. -- Orion Poplawski Technical Manager 303-415-9701 x222 NWRA, Boulder/CoRA Office FAX: 303-415-9702 3380 Mitchell Lane or...@nwra.com Boulder, CO 80301 http://www.nwra.com -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: thunderbird-24.0.2 reverted - why? (Use the commit log..., Luke)
Am 24.09.2013 19:21, schrieb Michael Cronenworth: No harm done. That statement was without judging. It was just the realization that process hat either fail or has not been initiated. Nothing more and nothing less. -- Regards, Heiko Adams signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: thunderbird-24.0.2 reverted - why? (Use the commit log..., Luke)
On 09/24/2013 11:18 AM, Heiko Adams wrote: Am 24.09.2013 19:06, schrieb Bruno Wolff III: On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 15:50:22 +0200, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote: if one person maintains thunderbird and the other one lightning how do you imagine that both packages are built at the same moment and get the same karma? There is a process for this. The t-bird maintainer gives the lightning maintainer a heads up and does the t-bird build. The lightning maintainer does a build override (to get the t-bird package into the set of packages used when doing bulds) and builds lightning. Then the lightning maintainer sets up a bohdi update with both t-bird and lightning in it. So in this case the process seems to be failed or not initiated. I just love people commenting with *no* idea of what is going on. Jan Horack (TB owner) and I (lightning owner) do talk to each other. Jan has commit access to lightning and updates it regularly. In this case it turned out that lightning had a lot of build issues that took a long time to solve. So, the process is fine and is being used. -- Orion Poplawski Technical Manager 303-415-9701 x222 NWRA, Boulder/CoRA Office FAX: 303-415-9702 3380 Mitchell Lane or...@nwra.com Boulder, CO 80301 http://www.nwra.com -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
