Re: No mass rebuild in Fedora 25

[Kevin Kofler]

Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
> On 05/02/2016 01:24 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>> There is strong engineering value in having two releases per year:
>> release early, release often. There are many projects that develop
>> through Fedora that get thrown into disarray when our cycle gets too far
>> out of whack (prominent examples being GNOME and glibc)
> 
> The distribution is made out of 14k+ components most of which of those
> components completely out of sync with the Gnome and Glibc one which
> means components that make up different products are not synced with
> those two components cycle, which means that you cannot have one
> product's release cycle be synced with another or bound to it's release
> cycle.
>
> Even historically QA did not manage to deal with this release cycle when
> distribution was smaller and when it was just one "generic" release but
> despite all the evidence of this not working through the years you still
> push this one forward which means in other words Red Hat wants the
> distribution cycle to be forcefully synced with Gnome and does what it
> takes to do so which is why it's back on Gnome's release cycle despite
> everything indicating it should not be on that cycle at the cost of the
> community and quality of the distribution.

+1

Upstream projects MUST NOT depend on downstream release cycles. This tight 
coupling between GNOME and Fedora is really unhealthy for both projects. A 
postponed or canceled (like the one that would have happened 6 months after 
F20) Fedora release should not have any effect on upstream at all.

> If there is genuine interest of start releasing fedora on time you will
> not achieve that goal by not doing or blocking mass rebuilds, you either
> need to stabilize anaconda development earlier in the cycle or find
> another installer for the distribution that can exist outside the
> distribution release cycles and does not have to be rewritten like
> people are getting paid for it every cycle.

https://calamares.io/

Kevin Kofler
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: No mass rebuild in Fedora 25

[Florian Weimer]

On 05/02/2016 09:51 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:


I had another conversation with them on IRC today. They knew, but when the wrong
schedule was put up they thought FESCo had changed plans. There's also been some
kerfluffle with the strlcat() patches that got pushed out, so we're going to
have to see how that plays out.


Agreed, we'll manage somehow without a mass rebuild (like Debian does). 
 It just came as a surprise to me.


Florian
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: No mass rebuild in Fedora 25

[Adam Williamson]

On Mon, 2016-05-02 at 22:36 +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
> 
> If there is genuine interest of start releasing fedora on time you will 
> not achieve that goal by not doing or blocking mass rebuilds, you either 
> need to stabilize anaconda development earlier in the cycle or find 
> another installer for the distribution that can exist outside the 
> distribution release cycles and does not have to be rewritten like 
> people are getting paid for it every cycle.

Since you haven't been around lately maybe you haven't noticed this,
but here's some interesting numbers for F24. For Alpha there were 35
blocker bugs (approximately - I'm using the BZ tree view which may
include some bugs that got fixed while they were proposed). Of those,
by count, 3 were anaconda-ecosystem bugs.

For Beta, we have ~28 blockers. 4 of those are/were anaconda-ecosystem
bugs.

Also note that most of the anaconda-related bugs were caused not by
changes in anaconda, but by disruptive changes in other components that
anaconda had to adapt to. And that all the anaconda blockers were
resolved very promptly and early.
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: No mass rebuild in Fedora 25

[Jóhann B . Guðmundsson]

On 05/02/2016 01:24 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:

There is strong engineering value in having two releases per year: release
early, release often. There are many projects that develop through Fedora that
get thrown into disarray when our cycle gets too far out of whack (prominent
examples being GNOME and glibc)


The distribution is made out of 14k+ components most of which of those 
components completely out of sync with the Gnome and Glibc one which 
means components that make up different products are not synced with 
those two components cycle, which means that you cannot have one 
product's release cycle be synced with another or bound to it's release 
cycle.


Even historically QA did not manage to deal with this release cycle when 
distribution was smaller and when it was just one "generic" release but 
despite all the evidence of this not working through the years you still 
push this one forward which means in other words Red Hat wants the 
distribution cycle to be forcefully synced with Gnome and does what it 
takes to do so which is why it's back on Gnome's release cycle despite 
everything indicating it should not be on that cycle at the cost of the 
community and quality of the distribution.


If there is genuine interest of start releasing fedora on time you will 
not achieve that goal by not doing or blocking mass rebuilds, you either 
need to stabilize anaconda development earlier in the cycle or find 
another installer for the distribution that can exist outside the 
distribution release cycles and does not have to be rewritten like 
people are getting paid for it every cycle.


JBG
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: No mass rebuild in Fedora 25

[Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski]

On Monday, 02 May 2016 at 19:22, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
> On Monday, 02 May 2016 at 18:15, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 10:03:51AM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
> > > On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 8:58 AM, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski
> > >  wrote:
> > > > On Monday, 02 May 2016 at 15:24, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> > > > [...]
> > > >> All of the major stakeholders that usually trigger a mass rebuild 
> > > >> (GCC, glibc,
> > > >> etc.) have been notified directly and are on board with this. This 
> > > >> announcement
> > > >> was to ensure that no one was left surprised by this in case we missed 
> > > >> telling
> > > >> anyone directly.
> > > >
> > > > I'm not so sure about GCC. It's been updated to 6.1 in both F25 and F24
> > > > and it's causing bugs already. For example, anything trying to link
> > > > against boost built with gcc-6.0.0 will fail to link at the moment, see
> > > > bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1331983 .
> > > 
> > > It's built in koji for F25 and F24, but it's not been bodhi pushed to
> > > updates-testing for either. I think this is the usual and expected way
> > > things go?
> > 
> > There are no known ABI incompatibilities between gcc-6.1.1 (i.e. snapshot
> > a few hours after the GCC 6.1 release) and recent 6.0.0 snapshots
> > (development snapshots months to weeks before the 6.1 release that happened
> > last week).  So, are you sure it is really in between
> > gcc-6.0.0-0.20.fc{24,25} and gcc-6.1.1-1.fc{24,25}, and not something you
> > just attribute to newer gcc because you see newer version on it?
> 
> All I know is this:
> https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=13828182 succeeded
> and https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=13872453 failed.
> Rebuilding boost makes it succeed again. In the first case,
> 6.0.0-0.20.fc25 was in the buildroot. 6.1.1-1.fc25 was in the latter.
> Boost was the same in both (1.60.0-5.fc25).

Also, if you read the bug description, you'll see that the linker failure
was caught by koschei when it tried to rebuild mkvtoolnix after updated
gcc hit the repositories:
https://apps.fedoraproject.org/koschei/package/mkvtoolnix (scroll down
to the first build attempt after 9.1.0-1.fc25). So yes, it looks to me
that either the newer gcc broke boost or there's a bug in boost exposed by
the gcc update.

Regards,
Dominik
-- 
Fedora http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Rathann
RPMFusion http://rpmfusion.org
"Faith manages."
-- Delenn to Lennier in Babylon 5:"Confessions and Lamentations"
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: No mass rebuild in Fedora 25

[Stephen Gallagher]

On 05/02/2016 03:35 PM, Peter Robinson wrote:
 The reason for not having mass rebuild during F25 development cycle is
 very tight schedule for F25 and we would like to avoid slips in F25 as
 much as possible. That is the main motivation here.
>>> In other words sacrificing quality for marketing reasons - Utterly poor :(
>>>
>>
>> It's not sacrificing quality. Mass rebuilds require a great deal of 
>> engineering
>> coordination. We're requesting that such coordination happens in the F26
>> development cycle instead, so we don't end up having another long cycle.
>>
>> There is strong engineering value in having two releases per year: release
>> early, release often. There are many projects that develop through Fedora 
>> that
>> get thrown into disarray when our cycle gets too far out of whack (prominent
>> examples being GNOME and glibc). So given that we needed to extend the F24
>> timeframe early on (and also had a couple slips), FESCo agreed to shorten 
>> F25 in
>> response so that we can still deliver the autumn releases of key projects
>> (without having to re-consider the updates policy like we did for GNOME
>> 3.14->3.16 during the "Year Almost Without Fedora").
>>
>> All of the major stakeholders that usually trigger a mass rebuild (GCC, 
>> glibc,
>> etc.) have been notified directly and are on board with this. This 
>> announcement
>> was to ensure that no one was left surprised by this in case we missed 
>> telling
>> anyone directly.
> 
> Really? The email from Florian on this thread 30 mins prior to this
> one conflicts with that from a glibc PoV and given they're part of the
> toolchain team and they didn't know does the rest of the toolchain
> team agree?
> 

I hadn't read Florian's email yet when I replied here (didn't see it in the 
list).

I had another conversation with them on IRC today. They knew, but when the wrong
schedule was put up they thought FESCo had changed plans. There's also been some
kerfluffle with the strlcat() patches that got pushed out, so we're going to
have to see how that plays out.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: No mass rebuild in Fedora 25

[Peter Robinson]

>>> The reason for not having mass rebuild during F25 development cycle is
>>> very tight schedule for F25 and we would like to avoid slips in F25 as
>>> much as possible. That is the main motivation here.
>> In other words sacrificing quality for marketing reasons - Utterly poor :(
>>
>
> It's not sacrificing quality. Mass rebuilds require a great deal of 
> engineering
> coordination. We're requesting that such coordination happens in the F26
> development cycle instead, so we don't end up having another long cycle.
>
> There is strong engineering value in having two releases per year: release
> early, release often. There are many projects that develop through Fedora that
> get thrown into disarray when our cycle gets too far out of whack (prominent
> examples being GNOME and glibc). So given that we needed to extend the F24
> timeframe early on (and also had a couple slips), FESCo agreed to shorten F25 
> in
> response so that we can still deliver the autumn releases of key projects
> (without having to re-consider the updates policy like we did for GNOME
> 3.14->3.16 during the "Year Almost Without Fedora").
>
> All of the major stakeholders that usually trigger a mass rebuild (GCC, glibc,
> etc.) have been notified directly and are on board with this. This 
> announcement
> was to ensure that no one was left surprised by this in case we missed telling
> anyone directly.

Really? The email from Florian on this thread 30 mins prior to this
one conflicts with that from a glibc PoV and given they're part of the
toolchain team and they didn't know does the rest of the toolchain
team agree?

Peter
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: No mass rebuild in Fedora 25

[James Hogarth]

On 2 May 2016 17:05, "Chris Murphy"  wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 8:58 AM, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski
>  wrote:
> > On Monday, 02 May 2016 at 15:24, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> > [...]
> >> All of the major stakeholders that usually trigger a mass rebuild
(GCC, glibc,
> >> etc.) have been notified directly and are on board with this. This
announcement
> >> was to ensure that no one was left surprised by this in case we missed
telling
> >> anyone directly.
> >
> > I'm not so sure about GCC. It's been updated to 6.1 in both F25 and F24
> > and it's causing bugs already. For example, anything trying to link
> > against boost built with gcc-6.0.0 will fail to link at the moment, see
> > bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1331983 .
>
> It's built in koji for F25 and F24, but it's not been bodhi pushed to
> updates-testing for either. I think this is the usual and expected way
> things go?
>

There is no updates-testing for rawhide, aka F25 at the moment, so anything
not a scratch build goes straight into it... Which is one of the key
reasons it's seen as quite unstable by many.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: No mass rebuild in Fedora 25

[Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski]

On Monday, 02 May 2016 at 18:15, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 10:03:51AM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
> > On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 8:58 AM, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski
> >  wrote:
> > > On Monday, 02 May 2016 at 15:24, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> > > [...]
> > >> All of the major stakeholders that usually trigger a mass rebuild (GCC, 
> > >> glibc,
> > >> etc.) have been notified directly and are on board with this. This 
> > >> announcement
> > >> was to ensure that no one was left surprised by this in case we missed 
> > >> telling
> > >> anyone directly.
> > >
> > > I'm not so sure about GCC. It's been updated to 6.1 in both F25 and F24
> > > and it's causing bugs already. For example, anything trying to link
> > > against boost built with gcc-6.0.0 will fail to link at the moment, see
> > > bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1331983 .
> > 
> > It's built in koji for F25 and F24, but it's not been bodhi pushed to
> > updates-testing for either. I think this is the usual and expected way
> > things go?
> 
> There are no known ABI incompatibilities between gcc-6.1.1 (i.e. snapshot
> a few hours after the GCC 6.1 release) and recent 6.0.0 snapshots
> (development snapshots months to weeks before the 6.1 release that happened
> last week).  So, are you sure it is really in between
> gcc-6.0.0-0.20.fc{24,25} and gcc-6.1.1-1.fc{24,25}, and not something you
> just attribute to newer gcc because you see newer version on it?

All I know is this:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=13828182 succeeded
and https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=13872453 failed.
Rebuilding boost makes it succeed again. In the first case,
6.0.0-0.20.fc25 was in the buildroot. 6.1.1-1.fc25 was in the latter.
Boost was the same in both (1.60.0-5.fc25).

Regards,
Dominik
-- 
Fedora http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Rathann
RPMFusion http://rpmfusion.org
"Faith manages."
-- Delenn to Lennier in Babylon 5:"Confessions and Lamentations"
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: No mass rebuild in Fedora 25

[Jakub Jelinek]

On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 10:03:51AM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
> On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 8:58 AM, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski
>  wrote:
> > On Monday, 02 May 2016 at 15:24, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> > [...]
> >> All of the major stakeholders that usually trigger a mass rebuild (GCC, 
> >> glibc,
> >> etc.) have been notified directly and are on board with this. This 
> >> announcement
> >> was to ensure that no one was left surprised by this in case we missed 
> >> telling
> >> anyone directly.
> >
> > I'm not so sure about GCC. It's been updated to 6.1 in both F25 and F24
> > and it's causing bugs already. For example, anything trying to link
> > against boost built with gcc-6.0.0 will fail to link at the moment, see
> > bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1331983 .
> 
> It's built in koji for F25 and F24, but it's not been bodhi pushed to
> updates-testing for either. I think this is the usual and expected way
> things go?

There are no known ABI incompatibilities between gcc-6.1.1 (i.e. snapshot
a few hours after the GCC 6.1 release) and recent 6.0.0 snapshots
(development snapshots months to weeks before the 6.1 release that happened
last week).  So, are you sure it is really in between
gcc-6.0.0-0.20.fc{24,25} and gcc-6.1.1-1.fc{24,25}, and not something you
just attribute to newer gcc because you see newer version on it?

Jakub
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: No mass rebuild in Fedora 25

[Chris Murphy]

On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 8:58 AM, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski
 wrote:
> On Monday, 02 May 2016 at 15:24, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> [...]
>> All of the major stakeholders that usually trigger a mass rebuild (GCC, 
>> glibc,
>> etc.) have been notified directly and are on board with this. This 
>> announcement
>> was to ensure that no one was left surprised by this in case we missed 
>> telling
>> anyone directly.
>
> I'm not so sure about GCC. It's been updated to 6.1 in both F25 and F24
> and it's causing bugs already. For example, anything trying to link
> against boost built with gcc-6.0.0 will fail to link at the moment, see
> bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1331983 .

It's built in koji for F25 and F24, but it's not been bodhi pushed to
updates-testing for either. I think this is the usual and expected way
things go?

-- 
Chris Murphy
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: No mass rebuild in Fedora 25

[Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski]

On Monday, 02 May 2016 at 15:24, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
[...]
> All of the major stakeholders that usually trigger a mass rebuild (GCC, glibc,
> etc.) have been notified directly and are on board with this. This 
> announcement
> was to ensure that no one was left surprised by this in case we missed telling
> anyone directly.

I'm not so sure about GCC. It's been updated to 6.1 in both F25 and F24
and it's causing bugs already. For example, anything trying to link
against boost built with gcc-6.0.0 will fail to link at the moment, see
bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1331983 .

Regards,
Dominik
-- 
Fedora http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Rathann
RPMFusion http://rpmfusion.org
"Faith manages."
-- Delenn to Lennier in Babylon 5:"Confessions and Lamentations"
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: No mass rebuild in Fedora 25

[Stephen Gallagher]

On 05/02/2016 09:12 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 05/02/2016 02:16 PM, Jan Kurik wrote:
> 
>> The reason for not having mass rebuild during F25 development cycle is
>> very tight schedule for F25 and we would like to avoid slips in F25 as
>> much as possible. That is the main motivation here.
> In other words sacrificing quality for marketing reasons - Utterly poor :(
> 

It's not sacrificing quality. Mass rebuilds require a great deal of engineering
coordination. We're requesting that such coordination happens in the F26
development cycle instead, so we don't end up having another long cycle.

There is strong engineering value in having two releases per year: release
early, release often. There are many projects that develop through Fedora that
get thrown into disarray when our cycle gets too far out of whack (prominent
examples being GNOME and glibc). So given that we needed to extend the F24
timeframe early on (and also had a couple slips), FESCo agreed to shorten F25 in
response so that we can still deliver the autumn releases of key projects
(without having to re-consider the updates policy like we did for GNOME
3.14->3.16 during the "Year Almost Without Fedora").

All of the major stakeholders that usually trigger a mass rebuild (GCC, glibc,
etc.) have been notified directly and are on board with this. This announcement
was to ensure that no one was left surprised by this in case we missed telling
anyone directly.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: No mass rebuild in Fedora 25

[Jaroslav Reznik]

On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 3:12 PM, Ralf Corsepius  wrote:

> On 05/02/2016 02:16 PM, Jan Kurik wrote:
>
> The reason for not having mass rebuild during F25 development cycle is
>> very tight schedule for F25 and we would like to avoid slips in F25 as
>> much as possible. That is the main motivation here.
>>
> In other words sacrificing quality for marketing reasons - Utterly poor :(
>

Well, it's not that easy to schedule Fedora release as you have to avoid
real life conflicts - especially autumn release is pretty packed.
Thanksgivings in the US, Christmas holidays etc. and hitting these dates
actually may affect quality more than anything else. You're under pressure
to release but right folks might not available... Releasing right after
Christmas is also pretty hard to achieve and then you put the same pressure
on spring release and you have to cut again... I did it and even I always
tried to be more flexible over strict time based schedules, these were real
red flags what to avoid.

Jaroslav


>
> Ralf
>
> --
> devel mailing list
> devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
>



-- 
Jaroslav Řezník 
Engineering Program Manager

Office: +420 532 294 645
Mobile: +420 602 797 774
PIN: REZZABBM
Red Hat, Inc.   http://www.redhat.com/
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: No mass rebuild in Fedora 25

[Ralf Corsepius]

On 05/02/2016 02:16 PM, Jan Kurik wrote:


The reason for not having mass rebuild during F25 development cycle is
very tight schedule for F25 and we would like to avoid slips in F25 as
much as possible. That is the main motivation here.

In other words sacrificing quality for marketing reasons - Utterly poor :(

Ralf
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: No mass rebuild in Fedora 25

[Florian Weimer]

On 05/02/2016 12:15 PM, Jan Kurik wrote:

Hi Fedora developers,

As several people already started to propose their Changes for Fedora
25, I would like to emphasize a decision FESCo made in January [1],
not to do mass rebuild during the Fedora 25 development cycle [2].


This is very unfortunate because some of us were relying on the initial 
Fedora 25 schedule, which did contain a mass rebuild, and which was 
posted *after* the Fesco decision (so we naturally assumed it had been 
superseded).  The resolution of this Fesco ticket goes into the same 
direction:


  

We can try to rebase glibc without a mass rebuild (after all, Debian 
does it all the time).  But I don't feel comfortable delaying 
potentially risky changes upstream (because of symbol clashes, e.g. 
gettid/getrandom/strlcpy) just because Fedora can't do a mass rebuild.


Florian
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: No mass rebuild in Fedora 25

[Jan Kurik]

On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 2:07 PM, Jiri Vanek  wrote:
> Hello!
>
> this link
>  > [1]
> https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/teams/fesco/fesco.2016-01-08-17.22.html
> Do not explain more about the missing mass rebuild.  Are there more
> infomration about?

The link points to the minutes from the FESCo meeting, where the
decision has been made. There is no page AFAIK having more
information.
The reason for not having mass rebuild during F25 development cycle is
very tight schedule for F25 and we would like to avoid slips in F25 as
much as possible. That is the main motivation here.

Regards,
Jan

>> [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/25/Schedule
>>
>
> Thanx!
>   J.
>



-- 
Jan Kuřík
Platform & Fedora Program Manager
Red Hat Czech s.r.o., Purkynova 99/71, 612 45 Brno, Czech Republic
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: No mass rebuild in Fedora 25

[Jiri Vanek]

Hello!

this link
 > [1] https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/teams/fesco/fesco.2016-01-08-17.22.html
Do not explain more about the missing mass rebuild.  Are there more infomration 
about?


[2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/25/Schedule



Thanx!
  J.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org