On Fri, Jul 02, 2010 at 03:46:29AM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Kevin Fenzi wrote:
It's only in updates-testing yet.
Now this is complete nonsense. The update is required to fix broken
dependencies so it should go to stable IMMEDIATELY.
people make mistakes. it happens, no big deal.
On 07/02/2010 12:09 AM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
It's in stable now. The time in testing allowed us to fix and add
several more packages to it and confirm that it did indeed fix things.
Maybe it's still being propagated, but when I did update --skip-broken
followed by yum update, right now (Fri Jul
On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 12:41:18 -0400, Przemek wrote:
On 07/02/2010 12:09 AM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
It's in stable now. The time in testing allowed us to fix and add
several more packages to it and confirm that it did indeed fix things.
Maybe it's still being propagated, but when I did update
On 07/02/2010 12:47 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 12:41:18 -0400, Przemek wrote:
On 07/02/2010 12:09 AM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
It's in stable now. The time in testing allowed us to fix and add
several more packages to it and confirm that it did indeed fix things.
Maybe it's
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
To me this is a clear case of package-push which should not have
happened and is not related to karma votes at all.
+1. The proper solution to prevent this kind of issues 100% reliably is to
implement AutoQA, the only decent part of the Update Proposal and the one
which
Kevin Fenzi wrote:
It's only in updates-testing yet.
Now this is complete nonsense. The update is required to fix broken
dependencies so it should go to stable IMMEDIATELY.
Kevin Kofler
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 03:46:29 +0200
Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote:
Kevin Fenzi wrote:
It's only in updates-testing yet.
Now this is complete nonsense. The update is required to fix broken
dependencies so it should go to stable IMMEDIATELY.
It's in stable now. The time in
On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 23:03:23 -0600, Kevin wrote:
It's only in updates-testing yet.
Gah! :-/
I wonder whether after years the Fedora N updates-testing report could
finally be sent to users' list instead of test list? Who can make that
happen?
--
devel mailing list
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 6/29/10 3:44 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 23:03:23 -0600, Kevin wrote:
It's only in updates-testing yet.
Gah! :-/
I wonder whether after years the Fedora N updates-testing report could
finally be sent to users' list
On Tue, 2010-06-29 at 12:44 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 23:03:23 -0600, Kevin wrote:
It's only in updates-testing yet.
Gah! :-/
I wonder whether after years the Fedora N updates-testing report could
finally be sent to users' list instead of test list? Who can
On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 10:05:59 -0700, Adam wrote:
On Tue, 2010-06-29 at 12:44 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 23:03:23 -0600, Kevin wrote:
It's only in updates-testing yet.
Gah! :-/
I wonder whether after years the Fedora N updates-testing report could
Michael Schwendt wrote:
A_copy_ to users' list would suffice. Test updates are relevant to the
users - and the build reports are sort of an early warning system about
what updates will likely be unleashed. It's especially relevant to the
users, when the updates aren't tested prior to entering
On Tue, 2010-06-29 at 14:28 -0500, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
Michael Schwendt wrote:
A_copy_ to users' list would suffice. Test updates are relevant to the
users - and the build reports are sort of an early warning system about
what updates will likely be unleashed. It's especially
On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 14:28:40 -0500, Michael wrote:
Michael Schwendt wrote:
A_copy_ to users' list would suffice. Test updates are relevant to the
users - and the build reports are sort of an early warning system about
what updates will likely be unleashed. It's especially relevant to the
On Fri, 2010-06-25 at 16:27 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Can anybody tell me what went wrong with this update? It was submitted
at 15:09 on 06-23, then made it into testing at 16:19 on 06-24 and was
submitted for stable two hours later.
On 06/29/2010 06:17 AM, Braden McDaniel wrote:
Updating F13 now works;
Does it?
Not for me.
...
Resolving Dependencies
-- Running transaction check
-- Processing Dependency: libedataserver-1.2.so.11 for package:
pidgin-evolution-2.7.1-2.fc13.i686
-- Processing Dependency:
On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 06:58:54 +0200
Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de wrote:
On 06/29/2010 06:17 AM, Braden McDaniel wrote:
Updating F13 now works;
Does it?
Not for me.
It's only in updates-testing yet.
Also, pidgin needed to be added to it. It failed rebuild due to a new
tcl in the
On Tue, 2010-06-29 at 06:58 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 06/29/2010 06:17 AM, Braden McDaniel wrote:
Updating F13 now works;
Does it?
Not for me.
Sigh... You're right. Some other updates happened and I thought this
one was included. But it just got skipped.
--
Braden McDaniel
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 6/25/10 10:50 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
Until AutoQA is in place to tackle this, the obvious option is for there
to be a process improvement whereby whoever's doing stable update pushes
at least gets notified if a package has received negative
On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 7:23 AM, Jesse Keating jkeat...@redhat.com wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 6/25/10 10:50 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
Until AutoQA is in place to tackle this, the obvious option is for there
to be a process improvement whereby whoever's doing
On Fri, 2010-06-25 at 22:50 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
I talked to notting c about this earlier, and we've hit this situation
before. The 'scenario' is simply that there's really no screening
between 'submit' and 'push' for stable updates, and this one was
submitted to stable before any
On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 12:14 PM, Luke Macken wrote:
On Fri, 2010-06-25 at 22:50 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
I talked to notting c about this earlier, and we've hit this situation
before. The 'scenario' is simply that there's really no screening
between 'submit' and 'push' for stable
On 06/26/2010 05:10 AM, Peter Robinson wrote:
That would only work if the script that does the push to stable (as
opposed to processing the request to push to stable) checks if any
negative karma has appeared since the request has happened.
Well, if there is a update push to stable request
On Sat, 2010-06-26 at 11:59 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 06/26/2010 11:20 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
Clearly the maintainer did not allow sufficient time for testing here;
there's a grand 4 hour window between the update being 'pushed to
testing' and 'submitted to stable'. That
On Sat, 2010-06-26 at 12:14 -0400, Luke Macken wrote:
The requirement for proventester feedback for critpath updates, when we
turn it on, should also catch problems like this in the critpath. Evo
isn't critpath, though, I believe.
evolution-data-server is in the critpath, and having the
Sounds like it might need to be. Maybe push stable requests with -2 karma to
some list that requires investigation and possibly a +3 (or other agreed
upon number) proventesters karma to go stable?
Just a thought.
-AdamM (From Android)
On Jun 25, 2010 6:27 PM, Jesse Keating jkeat...@redhat.com
On Fri, 2010-06-25 at 16:27 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Can anybody tell me what went wrong with this update? It was submitted
at 15:09 on 06-23, then made it into testing at 16:19 on 06-24 and was
submitted for stable two hours later. Between
On 06/26/2010 07:33 AM, Adam Miller wrote:
Sounds like it might need to be. Maybe push stable requests with -2 karma to
some list that requires investigation and possibly a +3 (or other agreed
upon number) proventesters karma to go stable?
Would you mind to explain how could have happened:
#
28 matches
Mail list logo
