On 13/03/10 01:45, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Al Dunsmuir wrote:
>> And turning all releases into rolling branches helps keep things
>> sane?
>>
>> Please call a spade a spade. Without a reduction in churn in the stable
>> releases that is what they become and remain until EOL - a rolling branch.
On 12/03/10 19:27, Adam Williamson wrote:
--snipped--
>>
>> Bringing it back to dialup.
>> Fedora liveCD 500-700mb
>> CentOS DVD 3.5GB app.
>> Fedora 1, CentOS 0
>
> In my experience, many users with restricted bandwidth actually prefer a
> *larger* install image, as then they at least have a datab
Outage: PackageDB Upgrade - 2010-03-15 17:00 UTC
There will be an outage starting at 2010-03-15 17:00 UTC, which will last
approximately 1 hours.
To convert UTC to your local time, take a look at
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/UTCHowto
or run:
date -d '2010-03-15 17:00 UTC'
Reason
Hello All!
Being bored to copy latest %changelog entry from spec-file to
"Details" field every time, I started wondering - why not to add the
following functionality to Bodhi:
* Automatically add latest %changelog entry to each Bodhi update as
"Notes" or as something else (new field, perhaps).
A
On 03/13/2010 12:22 AM, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-03-12 at 22:06 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> I think that new versions should, as a general rule, be pushed, unless there
>> is a good reason NOT to push a particular new version (feature regressions,
>> known unfixed new bugs as found dur
On 2010/03/11 23:23 (GMT+0100) drago01 composed:
> On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 10:54 PM, Felix Miata wrote:
>> On 2010/03/11 12:10 (GMT-0800) Adam Williamson composed:
>>> You know you can buy a PCI SATA controller card for about $10 in any PC
>>> junk store, right?
>> PC BIOS treat those as SCSI
Matthew Miller wrote:
> What's the problem, exactly, here? I've been running Rawhide on my desktop
> at home and work for a couple of years now with no serious complaints.
Oh no, not again! This has already been explained several times!
== begin paste ==
Rawhide is not the answer. It comes with d
On 2010/03/10 21:28 (GMT-0500) Ric Wheeler composed:
> For anyone serious about storage (performance, reliability and power
> consumption) this will be a positive step.
Not everyone. Users of larger numbers of small files and small numbers of
large files already lose a heap of space to slack eve
Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> Here is where we have a definition problem. To me, unbaked stuff is
> things that haven't had a good month of testing if its a large change
> (a couple of days if its a small one).
If you count all the testing done on prereleases, KDE 4.4.0 actually had
much MORE tha
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 6:56 PM, Matthew Woehlke
wrote:
> Jon Masters wrote:
>> On Sat, 2010-03-13 at 01:09 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>>> Jesse Keating wrote:
Then in my opinion those users, and those maintainers who wish to cater
to those users, can go start their own project.
>>>
>>>
As has been noted by several people, the current voting method has
some short comings on what should be voted -1, 0, or +1. In order to
help clarify what to vote, and when here are some guidelines that
should be useful.
Vote Non-exhaustive Reasons for vote
===
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 04:05:38PM -0600, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
> Anyone know of a distro that doesn't lag like Ubuntu/NewFedora? Is
> Mandrake kept up to date, or do they also make you wait months for new
> versions? Because I am *seriously* considering switching right now...
[...]
> Please. "R
Matthew Woehlke wrote:
> Anyone know of a distro that doesn't lag like Ubuntu/NewFedora? Is
> Mandrake kept up to date, or do they also make you wait months for new
> versions? Because I am *seriously* considering switching right now...
Arch?
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
I like fedora beacause it is both up to date and stable.
I also am admin for a several non tech users - and frankly if there is
an Aunt Tilly out there using fedora she never installed it - one of us
did - and we maintain it - and we speak for Aunt Tilly.
And if you ask Aunt Tilly - certai
Chris Adams wrote:
> Right after you _prove_ that this IS the case. How quick would you be
> to reject that poll as unscientific and meaningless if it didn't go your
> way? I thought it was a bad idea and didn't even take a look. How
> widespread was the poll among regular users (not developers)
Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-03-13 at 01:14 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> [...]
>
> There is clearly no reason to continue this conversation with you Kevin.
> We are just going to disagree.
That's what's really sad to me. Despite that the only "hard" evidence we
have seems to agree with wh
Jon Masters wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-03-13 at 01:09 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> Jesse Keating wrote:
>> > Then in my opinion those users, and those maintainers who wish to cater
>> > to those users, can go start their own project.
>>
>> Even if those users are 70+% of the current Fedora users?
>
Jon Masters wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-03-13 at 01:09 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> Jesse Keating wrote:
>>> Then in my opinion those users, and those maintainers who wish to cater
>>> to those users, can go start their own project.
>>
>> Even if those users are 70+% of the current Fedora users?
>
> Pro
Once upon a time, Peter Boy said:
> Am Freitag, den 12.03.2010, 15:31 -0600 schrieb Matthew Woehlke:
> > Thomas Janssen wrote:
> > > I have read all this mega-threads and i haven't found just a single
> > > argument why it's good for Fedora to change away from what we are.
> >
> > +10 to that!
>
Once upon a time, Kevin Kofler said:
> Jesse Keating wrote:
> > Then in my opinion those users, and those maintainers who wish to cater
> > to those users, can go start their own project.
>
> Even if those users are 70+% of the current Fedora users? That's quite
> plausible given the results of
Al Dunsmuir wrote:
> And turning all releases into rolling branches helps keep things
> sane?
>
> Please call a spade a spade. Without a reduction in churn in the stable
> releases that is what they become and remain until EOL - a rolling branch.
No, a "semi-rolling" branch, as in a branch
Am Freitag, den 12.03.2010, 15:31 -0600 schrieb Matthew Woehlke:
> Thomas Janssen wrote:
> > I have read all this mega-threads and i haven't found just a single
> > argument why it's good for Fedora to change away from what we are.
>
> +10 to that!
Indeed!!
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.
On Sat, 2010-03-13 at 01:14 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Jesse Keating wrote:
> > While it's true that some of our users appreciate the rapid stream of
> > updates, we may have to lose those users, or redirect them to other
> > avenues to rapid updates within the Fedora project and release stream.
Friday, March 12, 2010, 7:09:02 PM, Kevin wrote:
> Jesse Keating wrote:
>> Then in my opinion those users, and those maintainers who wish to cater
>> to those users, can go start their own project.
> Even if those users are 70+% of the current Fedora users? That's quite
> plausible given the resu
Friday, March 12, 2010, 7:02:54 PM, Kevin wrote:
> Al Dunsmuir wrote:
>> Maybe part of the answer is that some resources (especially
>> automation) need to be dedicated to keep the core critical components
>> of rawhide from being gratuitously broken and staying that way?
> An answer
Minutes:
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2010-03-12/fedora-releng.2010-03-12-18.09.html
Minutes (text):
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2010-03-12/fedora-releng.2010-03-12-18.09.txt
Log:
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2010-03-12/fedora-
On Sat, 2010-03-13 at 01:09 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Jesse Keating wrote:
> > Then in my opinion those users, and those maintainers who wish to cater
> > to those users, can go start their own project.
>
> Even if those users are 70+% of the current Fedora users?
Prove it. And prove your poin
Jesse Keating wrote:
> While it's true that some of our users appreciate the rapid stream of
> updates, we may have to lose those users, or redirect them to other
> avenues to rapid updates within the Fedora project and release stream.
And why would we want to lose a huge number, which appears to
Hello Kevin,
Friday, March 12, 2010, 6:52:32 PM, you wrote:
> Jesse Keating wrote:
>> Fundamental point of view difference. You take the point of view of
>> push everything all the time /unless/ there is a good enough reason not
>> to.
>>
>> Others take the point of view of not updating anythin
Jesse Keating wrote:
> Then in my opinion those users, and those maintainers who wish to cater
> to those users, can go start their own project.
Even if those users are 70+% of the current Fedora users? That's quite
plausible given the results of Adam Williamson's poll, at least you can't
prove
Al Dunsmuir wrote:
> Maybe part of the answer is that some resources (especially
> automation) need to be dedicated to keep the core critical components
> of rawhide from being gratuitously broken and staying that way?
An answer to what question? Certainly not to the points I made!
Th
On Sat, 2010-03-13 at 00:52 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Jesse Keating wrote:
> > Fundamental point of view difference. You take the point of view of
> > push everything all the time /unless/ there is a good enough reason not
> > to.
> >
> > Others take the point of view of not updating anything
On Fri, 2010-03-12 at 15:55 -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-03-13 at 00:50 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > Jesse Keating wrote:
> > > Fedora can still be (b)leading edge in the technologies it picks up for
> > > its releases. At the same time it can retain stability after the
> > > relea
Al Dunsmuir wrote:
> You are going to point out that the user will see a very large change
> (Z) as they upgrade from N-2 to N. This may be a large transition,
> with significant learning and configuration involved. Keeping N-1 and
> N-2 close to N reduces that. No argument for that point.
Hello Jesse,
Friday, March 12, 2010, 6:20:13 PM, you wrote:
> Keeping that cutting-edge release practice, but adding to that stability
> once released would indeed be a very unique and desirable niche for
> Fedora to fill.
Indeed.
It means the Fedora community will have grown up enough to unde
On Sat, 2010-03-13 at 00:50 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Jesse Keating wrote:
> > Fedora can still be (b)leading edge in the technologies it picks up for
> > its releases. At the same time it can retain stability after the
> > release has been released. Every 6 months, a new bleeding edge release
Jesse Keating wrote:
> Fundamental point of view difference. You take the point of view of
> push everything all the time /unless/ there is a good enough reason not
> to.
>
> Others take the point of view of not updating anything unless there is a
> good enough reason /to/.
Right. "Fundamental p
Jesse Keating wrote:
> Fedora can still be (b)leading edge in the technologies it picks up for
> its releases. At the same time it can retain stability after the
> release has been released. Every 6 months, a new bleeding edge release
> picking up all the kinds of things Fedora is the first to in
On 03/12/2010 11:25 AM, Peter Jones wrote:
> On 03/11/2010 07:18 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>
>> Once 4.n+1.0 is out, 4.n.x is no longer updated, there are no further bugfix
>> releases, any bugs in it will stay unfixed. And there are also nice new
>> features in the new version.
>
> So this all boils
On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 23:39:33 +0100
Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Simo Sorce wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 21:18:11 +0100
> > Kevin Kofler wrote:
> >
> >> The problem is, if all the
> >> distributions optimize for people with low bandwidth, then what
> >> should people like me who have higher bandwi
On Fri, 2010-03-12 at 22:06 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> I think that new versions should, as a general rule, be pushed, unless there
> is a good reason NOT to push a particular new version (feature regressions,
> known unfixed new bugs as found during testing, requires manual
> intervention, br
On Fri, 2010-03-12 at 13:56 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-03-12 at 15:31 -0600, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
> > Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> > > On 03/12/2010 04:36 PM, Thomas Janssen wrote:
> > >> And i disagree here. People like that have to face that Fedora or any
> > >> similar distro isn'
On Fri, 2010-03-12 at 16:05 -0600, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
>
> I'd expect people that want 100% Free to use gNewSense. I'm not sure how
> you define "more ammeniable to new contributors", so that's harder to
> address. Still, I think it's clear that at least some people use Fedora
> *because* it
On Fri, 2010-03-12 at 23:39 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Simo Sorce wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 21:18:11 +0100
> > Kevin Kofler wrote:
> >
> >> The problem is, if all the
> >> distributions optimize for people with low bandwidth, then what
> >> should people like me who have higher bandwidt
Hello Kevin,
Friday, March 12, 2010, 5:39:33 PM, you wrote:
>> On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 21:18:11 +0100 Simo Sorce wrote:
>> rawhide? F-13 ?
> No.
> This has already been explained several times!
> Rawhide is not the answer. It comes with disruptive changes (and there's no
> real way to avoid this pr
Hello Kevin,
Friday, March 12, 2010, 5:33:15 PM, you wrote:
> Al Dunsmuir wrote:
>>> On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 21:21:41 +0100
>>> Kevin Kofler wrote:
>>
The problem with all the proposals centered on the idea of N-1 as
conservative, N as less conservative, including yours above and
jr
Simo Sorce wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 21:18:11 +0100
> Kevin Kofler wrote:
>
>> The problem is, if all the
>> distributions optimize for people with low bandwidth, then what
>> should people like me who have higher bandwidths and would like to
>> use their bandwidth to get current software use
Hi,
Thanks for the feedbacks. Please review the new patch for this bug:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470684
Patch:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=399771&action=edit
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=399771&action=diff
The unused "done" label has been rem
Al Dunsmuir wrote:
>> On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 21:21:41 +0100
>> Kevin Kofler wrote:
>
>>> The problem with all the proposals centered on the idea of N-1 as
>>> conservative, N as less conservative, including yours above and
>>> jreznik's, is that it forces all the people who expect a constant
>>> ty
Simo Sorce wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 21:21:41 +0100
> Kevin Kofler wrote:
>
>> The problem with all the proposals centered on the idea of N-1 as
>> conservative, N as less conservative, including yours above and
>> jreznik's, is that it forces all the people who expect a constant
>> type of u
Peter Jones wrote:
> On 03/11/2010 07:26 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> Upstream cannot go back in time and magically fix a bug in an old
>> release.
>
> As an upstream maintainer, I wind up doing exactly this *constantly*.
No you don't. (I don't believe you invented time travel, sorry. ;-) ) You
c
On Fri, 2010-03-12 at 17:04 -0500, Chris Ball wrote:
>> But (and I mean this with no disrespect to anyone else) I am not
>> going to want to use it seriously when it means rolling back
>> everything that changed since installing updates (sure, if the
>> update is a kernel update an
Peter Jones wrote:
> And yet gnome package maintainers do manage to fix bugs without
> backporting all of gnome.
They don't fix all the bugs the new GNOME release series fixes. Most of
those bugs, if they don't happen to be fixed by one of the bugfix releases,
just stay unfixed until the next Fe
| Accidently sent off-list. Resent.
On Friday, March 12, 2010, 3:05:18 PM, Tuju wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Mar 2010, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>>> RHEL has the resources to backport. Centos uses those backpotrs for
>>> free, but does not generate them (unless again the party supporting a
>>> component
Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-03-12 at 21:59 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> All large software projects have thousands of bugs.
>
> Yep - and somehow *continue* to have thousands of bugs, all the time.
> Intrinsic in your argument is an admission that new releases always
> cause new bugs t
Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 15:31:26 -0600,
>Matthew Woehlke<> wrote:
I'd ask you not to do that, but you've been quite clear you've no
intention of listening.
>> Ubuntu's method satisfies more users, that is why they use Ubuntu.
>> People¹ use Fedora because it is lead
Hi,
>> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/SystemRollbackWithBtrfs
> That might be very useful for OLPC users, etc.
(Just to be clear, my interest in writing up this feature proposal was
unrelated to my work for OLPC; the proposal is purely aimed at Fedora,
and we don't have any plans t
On Fri, 2010-03-12 at 15:31 -0600, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
> Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> > On 03/12/2010 04:36 PM, Thomas Janssen wrote:
> >> And i disagree here. People like that have to face that Fedora or any
> >> similar distro isn't for them.
> >
> > I don't see why you want to continue pushing off
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 03/13/2010 03:01 AM, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
>>
>> Maybe by chasing "stable" you will find more users, but I think you will
>> lose adventurous users in the doing. I also think that the sort of user
>> you are likely to pi^H^Hirritate are the ones more likely to contribute
On Fri, 2010-03-12 at 22:15 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Adam Williamson wrote:
> > It may be a good idea to synchronize with RPM Fusion too, to avoid
> > things like this:
> >
> > http://nicubunu.blogspot.com/2010/03/no-video-for-you-at-least-not-today.html
>
> We do synchronize with RPM Fusion,
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 15:31:26 -0600,
Matthew Woehlke wrote:
>
> Ubuntu's method satisfies more users, that is why they use Ubuntu.
> People¹ use Fedora because it is leading edge. If we sacrifice that
> identity, then people¹ won't have any reason to use Fedora over Ubuntu.
>
> (¹not ever
On 03/13/2010 03:01 AM, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
>
> Maybe by chasing "stable" you will find more users, but I think you will
> lose adventurous users in the doing. I also think that the sort of user
> you are likely to pi^H^Hirritate are the ones more likely to contribute,
> and the ones you are
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 03/12/2010 04:36 PM, Thomas Janssen wrote:
>> And i disagree here. People like that have to face that Fedora or any
>> similar distro isn't for them.
>
> I don't see why you want to continue pushing off users instead of
> working out a method that satisfies more users.
U
Adam Williamson wrote:
> It may be a good idea to synchronize with RPM Fusion too, to avoid
> things like this:
>
> http://nicubunu.blogspot.com/2010/03/no-video-for-you-at-least-not-today.html
We do synchronize with RPM Fusion, and RPM Fusion has been aware of the need to
upgrade kdenlive in par
On Wed, 2010-03-10 at 18:22 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 03/10/2010 05:36 PM, Steven I Usdansky wrote:
> > Instead of worrying about the occasional brokenness caused by an update to
> > a stable release, how about focusing on a mechanism to easily recover from
> > it? As long as the update h
On 03/11/2010 07:26 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Upstream cannot go back in time and magically fix a bug in an old release.
As an upstream maintainer, I wind up doing exactly this *constantly*.
--
Peter
I number the Linux folks among my personal heroes.
-- Donald Knuth
--
Simo Sorce wrote:
> I am not sure what's Kevin POV anymore, probably he has some sort of
> view of what is the target user base and which packages should be fast
> movers, but I can't make it up from his emails anymore.
I think that new versions should, as a general rule, be pushed, unless there
On Fri, 2010-03-12 at 21:59 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Juha Tuomala wrote:
> > What comes to KDE's "there won't be anymore bugfix releases after
> > new feature release" - so what? How many real security issues has
> > there been in history? Five? Ten? I bet those all would be
> > backported by u
Once upon a time, Kevin Kofler said:
> What about the thousands of non-security bugs? Do you not want those fixed?
> All large software projects have thousands of bugs.
A major upgrade doesn't magically make thousands of bugs go away. At
best you can hope to trade some in for a new set of bugs.
Juha Tuomala wrote:
> What comes to KDE's "there won't be anymore bugfix releases after
> new feature release" - so what? How many real security issues has
> there been in history? Five? Ten? I bet those all would be
> backported by upstream if community size of Fedora would really need
> them. Eve
Here's a quick recap of yesterday's webcam Test Day:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2010-03-11_webcams
We had a great turnout for the event, so thanks to everyone who came by
and tested. Lots of people reported their cameras worked perfectly,
which is great, but we did get a few reports
Kevin wrote:
> But that still doesn't answer the question whether it shouldn't be
> up to people like you to choose a distribution catering to your
> needs as opposed to imposing them on the existing Fedora. The
> problem is, if all the distributions optimize for people with
> low bandwidth, then
Hello Simo,
Friday, March 12, 2010, 3:42:41 PM, you wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 21:21:41 +0100
> Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> The problem with all the proposals centered on the idea of N-1 as
>> conservative, N as less conservative, including yours above and
>> jreznik's, is that it forces all the
On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 21:21:41 +0100
Kevin Kofler wrote:
> The problem with all the proposals centered on the idea of N-1 as
> conservative, N as less conservative, including yours above and
> jreznik's, is that it forces all the people who expect a constant
> type of updates to upgrade twice as o
On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 17:33:31 +0100
Iain Arnell wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 3:22 PM, Marcela Maslanova
> wrote:
> > I created testing repo [1] with two updated core modules
> > and updates repo with perl(core) packages.
> > I've tested this scenario:
> > 1/ perl package with perl-Module-Buil
On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 21:18:11 +0100
Kevin Kofler wrote:
> The problem is, if all the
> distributions optimize for people with low bandwidth, then what
> should people like me who have higher bandwidths and would like to
> use their bandwidth to get current software use?
rawhide? F-13 ?
Simo.
-
Thomas Janssen wrote:
> That was the first post who made me think different about the infra
> problem. I'm still not with the idea to change Fedora completely. But i
> think a compromise like N-1 as much as possible only security and bugfixes
> (from our bugzilla only, so it's clear *our* users fac
On 03/12/2010 03:04 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Peter Jones wrote:
>> So this all boils down to you, the package maintainer, being unwilling or
>> unable to actually fix bugs? Is that what you're saying?
>
> KDE upstream fixes hundreds of bugs each month. It is just plain impossible
> to backport a
On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 18:59:30 +
Andy Green wrote:
> On 03/12/10 18:06, Somebody in the thread at some point said:
>
> >>> In this context, if you're writing homegrown apps, you're a
> >>> "developer", not a "user", so the above sentence obviously does
> >>> not apply. Instead, my original poi
The owner of easystroke has orphaned it, I'm just sending a note out in
case anyone wants it.
-Mike
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Compose started at Fri Mar 12 09:15:20 UTC 2010
Broken deps for i386
--
doodle-0.6.7-5.fc12.i686 requires libextractor.so.1
easystroke-0.5.2-1.fc13.i686 requires libboost_serialization-mt.so.5
edje-0.9.9.050-6.fc12.i68
John J. McDonough wrote:
> Much of this state has a population density less than 5 people per
> square kilometer, and that is crowded compared to many of the western
> states. At those population densities it will be some time before
> technology will be able to deliver high bandwidth connections
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 04:39:30AM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> Matthew Garrett wrote:
>>> If the software is not maintained within Fedora, there's no notification
>>> of soname bumps.
>> There is, soname bumps are supposed to be announced on this public list.
> A list that is targetted at deve
On Fri, 2010-03-12 at 21:06 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Peter Jones wrote:
> > It also implies that we're okay shipping updates of whole dep chains for
> > any bug whatsoever in a stable release. This is a gigantic problem! Many
> > people have complained about this - it uses much more bandwidth a
Peter Jones wrote:
> It also implies that we're okay shipping updates of whole dep chains for
> any bug whatsoever in a stable release. This is a gigantic problem! Many
> people have complained about this - it uses much more bandwidth and
> storage, even with deltas (in fact, significantly more sto
On Fri, 2010-03-12 at 20:51 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Eric Sandeen wrote:
> > Be sure to let our friends in developing countries know that to make
> > Fedora's life easier, they'd better get their infrastructure updated
> > pronto?
>
> Developing countries need to, well, DEVELOP their infrastru
On Fri, 12 Mar 2010, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> RHEL has the resources to backport. Centos uses those backpotrs for
>> free, but does not generate them (unless again the party supporting a
>> component for Centos happens to be upstream in RHEL).
>
> Debian has historically managed this. I real
Peter Jones wrote:
> So this all boils down to you, the package maintainer, being unwilling or
> unable to actually fix bugs? Is that what you're saying?
KDE upstream fixes hundreds of bugs each month. It is just plain impossible
to backport all their bugfixes with the manpower we, or any other e
On Fri, 2010-03-12 at 14:00 -0500, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> Except for a few people's proposals (dledford, adamw, jreznik, lmacken,
> dmalcolm) most of the proposals are weighting one of these viewpoints over
> the other which is not a very good way to build a community.
>
Actually I think it's a
Eric Sandeen wrote:
> Be sure to let our friends in developing countries know that to make
> Fedora's life easier, they'd better get their infrastructure updated
> pronto?
Developing countries need to, well, DEVELOP their infrastructure. In the
meantime, there are plenty of distributions with few
Hi,
Please review the patch for this bug:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470684
Patch:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=399730&action=edit
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=399730&action=diff
Due to the following issues:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.
On Fri, 2010-03-12 at 19:22 +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 02:18:23PM -0500, Al Dunsmuir wrote:
> > Hello Matthew,
> > > Other distributions manage this without too much trouble, so I don't see
> > > it being a problem to adopt this policy.
> > 1 word: Resources - person po
On Fri, 12 Mar 2010, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> I think you're hitting the nail on the head with this question. However,
> I'm afraid that the answer depends on the class of user. Some users want to
> have their old bugs fixed ASAP and are willing to tolerate some regressions
> as long as those
On Fri, 2010-03-12 at 12:26 +, Frank Murphy wrote:
> On 12/03/10 12:12, Thomas Janssen wrote:
> --sniped--
> >>>
> >>> Oh, so it's our fault?
> >>
> >> It's just life, in all it's forms.
> >
> > Exactly. And if i live in an area where i cant have everything, i
> > can't choose everything.
>
>
I noticed that we were missing from this page:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicating_and_getting_help#Contributors_Mailing_Lists
so I've gone ahead and added a link to this list to it.
Hopefully this will make us more visible after the mailing list
reorganization.
Dave
__
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 02:18:23PM -0500, Al Dunsmuir wrote:
> Hello Matthew,
> > Other distributions manage this without too much trouble, so I don't see
> > it being a problem to adopt this policy.
> 1 word: Resources - person power, time, funding, equipment, etc.
>
> Fedora is a free softwa
Hello Matthew,
Friday, March 12, 2010, 1:47:18 PM, you wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 01:19:07PM -0500, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
>> A) Fedora requires backports for problems that break ABI. Note that this
>> also means that Fedora may need to have people who create non-upstreamable
>> patches t
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 10:56:07AM +1000, Peter Hutterer wrote:
> As in, on average what are the costs of leaving a bug in vs. the cost of
> updating to a new release. I noticed that there's a number of bugs that only
> affect a subset of users that (often) can work around the issue. So the cost
>
On 03/12/10 18:06, Somebody in the thread at some point said:
>>> In this context, if you're writing homegrown apps, you're a
>>> "developer", not a "user", so the above sentence obviously does not
>>> apply. Instead, my original point does (you'll be compiling your
>>> own software very often any
On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 13:42:18 -0500
Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 08:48:23AM +0100, Matěj Cepl wrote:
> > Dne 12.3.2010 02:26, Mike Chambers napsal(a):
> > > On F13, upgrade gnome-panel to version in updates-testing and
> > > you'll get
> >
> > When was F13 released? Oh, it was
1 - 100 of 192 matches
Mail list logo
