On Tue, 9 Sep 2008, Jeremy Katz wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-09-09 at 21:33 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
> > On Wed, 10 Sep 2008, Paul W. Frields wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2008-09-09 at 21:02 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 9 Sep 2008, Robin Norwood wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 9:3
On Tue, 9 Sep 2008, Mike McGrath wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Sep 2008, Jeremy Katz wrote:
> > >
> > > Backups, time to maintain, bandwidth for the backups, testing when we make
> > > changes, people to notify should our Infrastructure get compromised again,
> > > etc, the unknown.
> >
> > Backups really ar
On Tue, 9 Sep 2008, Jeremy Katz wrote:
> >
> > Backups, time to maintain, bandwidth for the backups, testing when we make
> > changes, people to notify should our Infrastructure get compromised again,
> > etc, the unknown.
>
> Backups really are equivalent to disk space. Testing for changes --
> m
On Tue, 9 Sep 2008, Jeremy Katz wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-09-09 at 21:20 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
> > I don't see why that project would get removed. I really think I'm
> > getting misunderstood here.
>
> I think that part of the misunderstanding is that I don't see "six
> months" as equivalent to
On Tue, 2008-09-09 at 21:33 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Sep 2008, Paul W. Frields wrote:
> > On Tue, 2008-09-09 at 21:02 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
> > > On Tue, 9 Sep 2008, Robin Norwood wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 9:34 PM, Mike McGrath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
On Tue, 2008-09-09 at 21:20 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
> I don't see why that project would get removed. I really think I'm
> getting misunderstood here.
I think that part of the misunderstanding is that I don't see "six
months" as equivalent to "stale". We're not even to the seven year
point of
On Wed, 10 Sep 2008, Paul W. Frields wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-09-09 at 21:02 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
> > On Tue, 9 Sep 2008, Robin Norwood wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 9:34 PM, Mike McGrath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > Nope, the terms of use are already pretty clear. And no one h
On Tue, 2008-09-09 at 21:02 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Sep 2008, Robin Norwood wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 9:34 PM, Mike McGrath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Nope, the terms of use are already pretty clear. And no one has provided
> > > a compelling reason to keep these pr
On Tue, 2008-09-09 at 22:11 -0400, Jeremy Katz wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-09-09 at 20:34 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
> > On Tue, 9 Sep 2008, Robin Norwood wrote:
> > > On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 4:35 PM, Mike McGrath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > In general from the infrastructure side I'd say we want t
On Tue, 9 Sep 2008, Jeremy Katz wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-09-09 at 20:34 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
> > On Tue, 9 Sep 2008, Robin Norwood wrote:
> > > On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 4:35 PM, Mike McGrath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > In general from the infrastructure side I'd say we want to keep the
> >
On Tue, 2008-09-09 at 20:34 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Sep 2008, Robin Norwood wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 4:35 PM, Mike McGrath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > In general from the infrastructure side I'd say we want to keep the
> > > barrier to enter low but the quality high. C
On Tue, 9 Sep 2008, Robin Norwood wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 9:34 PM, Mike McGrath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Nope, the terms of use are already pretty clear. And no one has provided
> > a compelling reason to keep these projects around, just lots of
> > suggestions on how to keep them a
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:fedora-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike McGrath
> Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2008 6:37 PM
> To: Fedora Infrastructure
> Subject: RE: Removal of old projects from fedorahosted.
>
> On Tue, 9 Sep 2008, Brett Lentz wrote:
>
> > >
On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 9:34 PM, Mike McGrath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Nope, the terms of use are already pretty clear. And no one has provided
> a compelling reason to keep these projects around, just lots of
> suggestions on how to keep them around. Deleted is what we want, not
> delisted or
On Tue, 9 Sep 2008, Brett Lentz wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:fedora-
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Robin Norwood
> > Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2008 6:11 PM
> > To: Fedora Infrastructure
> > Subject: Re: Removal of old projects from fedorahosted.
On Tue, 9 Sep 2008, Brett Lentz wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:fedora-
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Robin Norwood
> > Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2008 6:11 PM
> > To: Fedora Infrastructure
> > Subject: Re: Removal of old projects from fedorahosted.
On Tue, 9 Sep 2008, Robin Norwood wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 4:35 PM, Mike McGrath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > In general from the infrastructure side I'd say we want to keep the
> > barrier to enter low but the quality high. Certainly there's projects
> > that don't need to be updated ev
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:fedora-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Robin Norwood
> Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2008 6:11 PM
> To: Fedora Infrastructure
> Subject: Re: Removal of old projects from fedorahosted.
>
> On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 4:35 PM, Mike McGrath <
On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 4:35 PM, Mike McGrath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In general from the infrastructure side I'd say we want to keep the
> barrier to enter low but the quality high. Certainly there's projects
> that don't need to be updated every 6 months but we can identify those and
> deal
On Tue, Sep 09, 2008 at 02:35:56PM -0500, Matt Domsch wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 09, 2008 at 12:02:04PM -0400, Jeremy Katz wrote:
> > On Tue, 2008-09-09 at 20:33 +0530, susmit shannigrahi wrote:
> > > As explained by mmcgrath, Fedora has a policy to remove _any_ hosted
> > > projects that are
> > > not a
On Tue, 9 Sep 2008, Ian Weller wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 09, 2008 at 03:35:41PM -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
> > This is one of the things we're hoping to prevent with fedorahosted. The
> > hope is that the fedorahosted brand will be known for good, active
> > projects. Not vaporware.
> >
> > We'll cer
On Tue, Sep 09, 2008 at 03:35:41PM -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
> This is one of the things we're hoping to prevent with fedorahosted. The
> hope is that the fedorahosted brand will be known for good, active
> projects. Not vaporware.
>
> We'll certainly be contacting the project members and let t
On Tue, 9 Sep 2008, Ian Weller wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 09, 2008 at 10:20:25PM +0530, Debarshi Ray wrote:
> > The thing with Opyum is that its functionality has been very nicely
> > ported to PackageKit by one of my friends during this year's Google
> > Summer of Code. Fedora 8 still caries Opyum, but
On Tue, Sep 09, 2008 at 10:20:25PM +0530, Debarshi Ray wrote:
> The thing with Opyum is that its functionality has been very nicely
> ported to PackageKit by one of my friends during this year's Google
> Summer of Code. Fedora 8 still caries Opyum, but its useless for
> Fedora 9 and onwards. I just
On Tue, Sep 09, 2008 at 12:02:04PM -0400, Jeremy Katz wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-09-09 at 20:33 +0530, susmit shannigrahi wrote:
> > As explained by mmcgrath, Fedora has a policy to remove _any_ hosted
> > projects that are
> > not altered or updated for last six months.
>
> Hmmm -- this seems a little
> As explained by mmcgrath, Fedora has a policy to remove _any_ hosted
> projects that are
> not altered or updated for last six months.
I am pleasantly suprised to see that Opyum is not in that list. :-)
The thing with Opyum is that its functionality has been very nicely
ported to PackageKit by
On Tue, 9 Sep 2008, Jeremy Katz wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-09-09 at 20:33 +0530, susmit shannigrahi wrote:
> > As explained by mmcgrath, Fedora has a policy to remove _any_ hosted
> > projects that are
> > not altered or updated for last six months.
>
> Hmmm -- this seems a little problematic. It's de
On Tue, 2008-09-09 at 20:33 +0530, susmit shannigrahi wrote:
> As explained by mmcgrath, Fedora has a policy to remove _any_ hosted
> projects that are
> not altered or updated for last six months.
Hmmm -- this seems a little problematic. It's definitely possible to
have a "mature" project which
Mike McGrath ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said:
> > [1]https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-infrastructure/ticket/714
>
> So I guess the best thing from here is to send an email to each group
> notifying them of what has happened and why we'd like to remove their
> project. tell them how to get the code off i
On Tue, 9 Sep 2008, susmit shannigrahi wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This is w.r.t to ticket #714[1].
>
> As explained by mmcgrath, Fedora has a policy to remove _any_ hosted
> projects that are
> not altered or updated for last six months.
>
> Here is the list of projects, which falls into this category and t
Hi,
This is w.r.t to ticket #714[1].
As explained by mmcgrath, Fedora has a policy to remove _any_ hosted
projects that are
not altered or updated for last six months.
Here is the list of projects, which falls into this category and they
will soon be removed.
---
Mike McGrath wrote:
Collab1 is a server focused around our collaboration tools. Right now it
has some mailing lists and a sobby server. It will probably also have our
pastebin in the future once it gets ready.
Cool, definitely sounds like I need to ping you more online about this.
Next th
32 matches
Mail list logo
