> "CM" == Chris Murphy writes:
CM> But anyway, I did laugh a bit out loud at 23:45 UTC because *of
CM> course* there are many other totally unambiguous times to choose
CM> from instead. Some of the best comedy is pointing out the obvious.
If we're going to bikeshed it, I'll vote for two
Le 2019-09-02 19:27, Kevin Kofler a écrit :
Nicolas Mailhot via devel wrote:
2. However the IETF explicitely forbid it when defining the ISO 8501
subset allowed on the Internet
RFC 3339> Although ISO 8601 permits the hour to be "24", this profile
of
ISO
RFC 3339> 8601 only allows values
Nicolas Mailhot via devel wrote:
> 2. However the IETF explicitely forbid it when defining the ISO 8501
> subset allowed on the Internet
>
> RFC 3339> Although ISO 8601 permits the hour to be "24", this profile of
> ISO
> RFC 3339> 8601 only allows values between "00" and "23" for the hour in
>
Le 2019-08-31 10:44, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek a écrit :
(I asked a few people what 24:00 means to them, and after getting a
few strange looks and answers,
To be fair:
1. ISO 8501 allows writing 24:00
Wikipedia> Midnight is a special case and may be referred to as either
"00:00" or
On Sat, Aug 31, 2019 at 8:45 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> So, we are moving it one minute earlier? If it's listed as tuesday on
> the schedule it should be 23:59 on tuesday at least. :)
>
> I would still like a bit earlier so releng folks don't need to work at
> night. Perhaps 20UTC could be a ok
On Sat, Aug 31, 2019 at 8:45 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On 8/31/19 1:52 AM, Kalev Lember wrote:
> > On Sat, Aug 31, 2019, 10:46 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <
> zbys...@in.waw.pl>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, Aug 31, 2019 at 10:22:32AM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> >>> Chris Murphy wrote:
> 2400
On 8/31/19 1:52 AM, Kalev Lember wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 31, 2019, 10:46 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Aug 31, 2019 at 10:22:32AM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>>> Chris Murphy wrote:
2400 is totally confusing, I'm only finding it used in military
contexts and even there
On Sat, Aug 31, 2019, 10:46 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 31, 2019 at 10:22:32AM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > Chris Murphy wrote:
> > > 2400 is totally confusing, I'm only finding it used in military
> > > contexts and even there it seems to be vernacular. I'd rather be
> >
On Sat, Aug 31, 2019 at 10:22:32AM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Chris Murphy wrote:
> > 2400 is totally confusing, I'm only finding it used in military
> > contexts and even there it seems to be vernacular. I'd rather be
> > surprised if military police use it.
>
> Then just write 23:59 instead.
Chris Murphy wrote:
> 2400 is totally confusing, I'm only finding it used in military
> contexts and even there it seems to be vernacular. I'd rather be
> surprised if military police use it.
Then just write 23:59 instead.
> My suggestion would be, without respect to preference, 0015 UTC, 0030
>
On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 6:26 AM Martin Kolman wrote:
>
> I would personally still find even 24:00 confusing & would really suggest
> something
> clearly inambigous, such as 23:45 UTC or similar - that should clear any
> doubt of which day
> the freeze is part of once and for all & yet again no
On 8/30/19 8:25 AM, Martin Kolman wrote:
But wouldn't 24:00/23:59 be even better than 18:00? And changing from 00:00
to 24:00 wouldn't even require changing the actual time (as changing to
18:00 does), just the way it is announced.
That is a little confusing in my opinion.
I would like to
On Fri, 2019-08-30 at 13:59 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Panu Matilainen wrote:
> > On 8/29/19 8:30 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > > I'd support changing the freeze dates to be something more like 18:00UTC
> > > the date they are listed. That would give people more time/be actually
> > > on the date
Panu Matilainen wrote:
> On 8/29/19 8:30 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>> I'd support changing the freeze dates to be something more like 18:00UTC
>> the date they are listed. That would give people more time/be actually
>> on the date when people are awake. I'll float the idea to releng and
>> then
On Fri, 2019-08-30 at 10:08 +0300, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> On 8/29/19 8:30 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > I'd support changing the freeze dates to be something more like 18:00UTC
> > the date they are listed. That would give people more time/be actually
> > on the date when people are awake. I'll
On 8/29/19 8:30 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
I'd support changing the freeze dates to be something more like 18:00UTC
the date they are listed. That would give people more time/be actually
on the date when people are awake. I'll float the idea to releng and
then fesco.
That would be awesome.
It's
Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> If I say:
>
> 2019-08-20 at 00:00UTC I think I can guess this to be the very start of
> that day, perhaps?
>
> 2019-08-29 at 24:00UTC is... what? the last miliseconds of that day and
> thus really right next to 2019-08-30 00:00UTC?
2019-08-29 24:00UTC = 2019-08-30 00:00UTC
On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 12:44 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>
> On 8/29/19 11:05 AM, Ben Cotton wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 1:31 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> >>
> >> 24:00 does not exist? Or to me it makes as little sense as 00:00.
> >>
> > You're technically correct, which Futurama taught me is the
On 8/29/19 11:05 AM, Ben Cotton wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 1:31 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>>
>> 24:00 does not exist? Or to me it makes as little sense as 00:00.
>>
> You're technically correct, which Futurama taught me is the best kind
> of correct. I've seen it to mean "midnight at the end of
On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 1:31 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>
> 24:00 does not exist? Or to me it makes as little sense as 00:00.
>
You're technically correct, which Futurama taught me is the best kind
of correct. I've seen it to mean "midnight at the end of the day" in
order to distinguish from "midnight
On 8/27/19 5:31 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Vít Ondruch wrote:
>> I think that all the major milestones happen typically on Tuesday, so
>> this must have been (unfortunate) typo IMO.
>
> But the point is that this was corrected less than 24 hours before the
> freeze kicks in. This is a completely
On Wed, 28 Aug 2019 09:47:49 -0700
"Gerald B. Cox" wrote:
> I'm still getting these messages when I try to do "fedpkg update" for
> F31:
>
> fedpkg update
> Could not execute update: Could not generate update request: Cannot
> find release associated with build: copyq-3.9.2-1.fc31, tags:
I'm still getting these messages when I try to do "fedpkg update" for F31:
fedpkg update
Could not execute update: Could not generate update request: Cannot find
release associated with build: copyq-3.9.2-1.fc31, tags: ['f31']
A copy of the filled in template is saved as bodhi.template.last
On
On Tue, 27 Aug 2019 17:52:00 -0700
Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On 8/27/19 4:27 AM, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> > On 27. 08. 19 13:06, Paul Howarth wrote:
> >> On Mon, 26 Aug 2019 20:55:18 -0400
> >> Mohan Boddu wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi all,
> >>>
> >>> Today's an important day on the Fedora 31 schedule[1],
On 8/27/19 4:27 AM, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> On 27. 08. 19 13:06, Paul Howarth wrote:
>> On Mon, 26 Aug 2019 20:55:18 -0400
>> Mohan Boddu wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> Today's an important day on the Fedora 31 schedule[1], with several
>>> significant cut-offs. First of all today is
>>> the Bodhi
Vít Ondruch wrote:
> I think that all the major milestones happen typically on Tuesday, so
> this must have been (unfortunate) typo IMO.
But the point is that this was corrected less than 24 hours before the
freeze kicks in. This is a completely unacceptably short notice.
It is already bad
Dne 27. 08. 19 v 12:50 Parag Nemade napsal(a):
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 4:14 PM Mamoru TASAKA
> mailto:mtas...@fedoraproject.org>> wrote:
>
> Mohan Boddu wrote on 2019/08/27 9:55:
> > Hi all,
>
> >
> >
> > Today is also the Beta freeze[4]. This means that only
On 27. 08. 19 12:50, Parag Nemade wrote:> I too got confused because I have
already recorded 29th August as Beta Freeze in
my calendar. I see that Ben has edited the Schedule page[1] but I am yet to see
if there is any accompanying FESCo ticket approval for this change.
That totally confused
On 27. 08. 19 13:06, Paul Howarth wrote:
On Mon, 26 Aug 2019 20:55:18 -0400
Mohan Boddu wrote:
Hi all,
Today's an important day on the Fedora 31 schedule[1], with several
significant cut-offs. First of all today is
the Bodhi activation point [2]. That means that from now all Fedora 31
On Mon, 26 Aug 2019 20:55:18 -0400
Mohan Boddu wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Today's an important day on the Fedora 31 schedule[1], with several
> significant cut-offs. First of all today is
> the Bodhi activation point [2]. That means that from now all Fedora 31
> packages must be submitted to
>
On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 4:14 PM Mamoru TASAKA
wrote:
> Mohan Boddu wrote on 2019/08/27 9:55:
> > Hi all,
>
> >
> >
> > Today is also the Beta freeze[4]. This means that only packages which fix
> > accepted blocker or freeze exception
> > bugs[5][6] will be marked as 'stable' and included in the
Mohan Boddu wrote on 2019/08/27 9:55:
Hi all,
Today is also the Beta freeze[4]. This means that only packages which fix
accepted blocker or freeze exception
bugs[5][6] will be marked as 'stable' and included in the Beta composes.
Other builds will remain in updates-
testing until the Beta
Hi all,
Today's an important day on the Fedora 31 schedule[1], with several
significant cut-offs. First of all today is
the Bodhi activation point [2]. That means that from now all Fedora 31
packages must be submitted to
updates-testing and pass the relevant requirements[3] before they will be
33 matches
Mail list logo
