On Sun, 27 Oct 2013 01:54:44 + (UTC), Ben Boeckel wrote:
Well, there is FE-NEEDSPONSOR. Could we add a checkbox to this page[1]
for needing a sponsor? A new packager might not know about
FE-NEEDSPONSOR and getting it right up front would help, I'd think.
On 10/27/2013 12:46 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Sun, 27 Oct 2013 01:54:44 + (UTC), Ben Boeckel wrote:
I also wouldn't mind seeing a list of FE-NEEDSPONSOR bugs be emailed to
devel@ (similar to the ownership change email). Open reviews might be
nice as well, but maybe just FE-NEEDSPONSOR
On Sun, 27 Oct 2013 13:43:57 +0100, Alec Leamas wrote:
Or, email not all FE-NEEDSPONSOR tickets but only those which are
deemed too old to be OK.
When would that be?
A recurring problem in the review queue is long response time. That is,
it takes several weeks (or even longer) till the
On 10/27/2013 07:43 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Sun, 27 Oct 2013 13:43:57 +0100, Alec Leamas wrote:
Or, email not all FE-NEEDSPONSOR tickets but only those which are
deemed too old to be OK.
When would that be?
A recurring problem in the review queue is long response time. That is,
it
On Sun, 27 Oct 2013 20:23:22 +0100, Alec Leamas wrote:
[...] my idea was just that some kind of reminder if no-one
takes the ball , however that is defined (comment from sponsor, assigned
to sponsor, ...) within some time.
That wouldn't be helpful. There would only be a notification about
On Sat, 19 Oct, 2013 at 22:22:58 GMT, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
How about anytime someone (who is not a sponsor) has helped someone not
yet sponsored and thinks their package(s) are ready for official
review/sponsorship, they mail the pool of sponsors asking for someone
to step up and do so? Or we
On Thu, 24 Oct 2013 18:23:49 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Mon, 2013-10-21 at 18:08 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
The intended usage of test list has always been a problem. Once in a
while, somebody points that out, but there's nobody (no leadership) to
work on a change actively. Is
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 04:02:23PM +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
The people who've pointed out the confusion about which list to choose
when haven't drunk away their memory and could join here, but that will be
fruitless if an instance such as FESCo decides otherwise.
So, here's what I'd like
On Tue, 22 Oct 2013 16:17:14 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
I would think that if we are in a situation where people who do development
don't subscribe to the devel list because of 'energy' reasons
(disillusionment, feelings of either a) pointlessness b) fait-accompli,
etc.), then just moving
On Fri, 2013-10-25 at 16:02 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
The split and intended usage has been questioned by several community
members for many years, even already when the lists where still on Red
Hat's servers.
Locating such comments with a search engine isn't easy.
On Fri, 2013-10-25 at 10:48 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 04:02:23PM +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
The people who've pointed out the confusion about which list to choose
when haven't drunk away their memory and could join here, but that will be
fruitless if an
On Fri, 25 Oct 2013 10:40:28 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
Ever since I've joined,
which is ohgod nearly five years ago now, the split has seemed
reasonably clear and non-controversial, and I really can't recall anyone
being particularly confused about it, so perhaps this is a problem which
On Fri, 2013-10-25 at 21:43 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Fri, 25 Oct 2013 10:40:28 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
Ever since I've joined,
which is ohgod nearly five years ago now, the split has seemed
reasonably clear and non-controversial, and I really can't recall anyone
being
On Fri, 25 Oct 2013 13:54:27 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
I'm sure the docs team talks about stuff in Rawhide occasionally too;
Unlike devel, the docs list is related to Documentation only, isn't it?
Could you imagine turning devel into a less general list?
Is devel the catch-all for anything
On Fri, 2013-10-25 at 23:08 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Fri, 25 Oct 2013 13:54:27 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
I'm sure the docs team talks about stuff in Rawhide occasionally too;
Unlike devel, the docs list is related to Documentation only, isn't it?
Could you imagine turning
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 10:41:12AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
mailman topics/keywords features to sort into meaningful sub-categories. I
understand that hyperkitty will make this nice and easy, but it's also not
really very hard just as email. Note that you can subscribe to just certain
On Fri, 2013-10-25 at 17:41 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
I'd love to hear better suggestions the main problem seems to be it's
so busy no one goes there anymore.
There is a rather obvious gaping logical flaw in that one ;)
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw |
On Oct 25, 2013 3:09 PM, Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, 25 Oct 2013 13:54:27 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
I'm sure the docs team talks about stuff in Rawhide occasionally too;
Unlike devel, the docs list is related to Documentation only, isn't it?
Could you imagine
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 11:41 PM, Matthew Miller
mat...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 10:41:12AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
mailman topics/keywords features to sort into meaningful sub-categories. I
understand that hyperkitty will make this nice and easy, but it's also
TRAFFIC mentioned in the list description. ;)
I guess the problem is not fixable with old-school mailing-lists.
The thread Lack of response about sponsorship could have posted on
fedora-join list. Who has been aware of that list anyway?
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/fedora-join/
It's
On Sat, 2013-10-26 at 02:11 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
Adam says that devel is relevant to *developers* (or rather, packagers).
Yet there is the packaging list, too. Quote from Oct 16th:
I don't know whether this belongs to the packaging or devel list,
Now to me, THAT seems like a
On 10/25/2013 04:48 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 04:02:23PM +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
The people who've pointed out the confusion about which list to choose
when haven't drunk away their memory and could join here, but that will be
fruitless if an instance such as
On 10/26/2013 02:14 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Sat, 2013-10-26 at 02:11 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
Adam says that devel is relevant to *developers* (or rather, packagers).
Yet there is the packaging list, too. Quote from Oct 16th:
I don't know whether this belongs to the packaging or
On 10/25/2013 11:55 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Fri, 2013-10-25 at 17:41 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
I'd love to hear better suggestions the main problem seems to be it's
so busy no one goes there anymore.
There is a rather obvious gaping logical flaw in that one ;)
Not quite.
On 10/24/2013 07:01 AM, Christopher Meng wrote:
Errr...
I just hope if a packager is also its upstream, we can sponsor him
quickly as well.
Why should we? I don't see why this should be of any relevance.
Somebody being involved into upstream only is an indication for somebody
being familiar
On Thu, 24 Oct 2013 13:01:18 +0800, Christopher Meng wrote:
Errr...
I just hope if a packager is also its upstream, we can sponsor him
quickly as well.
Well, people are different, and it may not always happen quickly, if the
package suffers from issues and/or the Fedora specific stuff
See an example of mindi-busybox, packager from HP still can't get
sponsored after 5 years.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476234
It has had fedora-review flag set to '?', which means somebody
is working on it.
I've cleaned up the tickets and their dependencies.
Several
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 13:17:53 +0200,
Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com wrote:
Several have not been displayed in the review queue, none has been displayed
on the needsponsor list, and Bruno uses three different submitter email
addresses in bugzilla.
Me Bruno? I should be just using
On Thu, 24 Oct 2013 08:11:08 -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
Several have not been displayed in the review queue, none has been displayed
on the needsponsor list, and Bruno uses three different submitter email
addresses in bugzilla.
Me Bruno?
No, another Bruno, previously referred to as
On Sat, 2013-10-19 at 16:22 -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
to step up and do so? Or we add another state sponsors could query for
this?
I think this would very much be the best option. For instance, a couple
of us have been reviewing the gooey-karma package (like easy-karma, but
with a GUI!):
On Mon, 2013-10-21 at 18:08 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
The intended usage of test list has always been a problem. Once in a
while, somebody points that out, but there's nobody (no leadership) to
work on a change actively. Is it only for Test releases or also for
Rawhide? Its description
On Mon, 2013-10-21 at 17:34 +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 10/21/2013 05:25 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
So, discussing Test Updates for stable dist releases belongs onto which
list?
According to some in the QA community ( at least in the past ) any GA
release test topic ( like
On Tue, 2013-10-22 at 07:01 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 10/21/2013 07:48 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Mon, 21 Oct 2013 13:07:25 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
As a first step, I suggest clearing up the intended usage of devel list.
There's too much traffic on that list. 792 messages
Errr...
I just hope if a packager is also its upstream, we can sponsor him
quickly as well. Also applied to comaintainer as upstream. And if
people coming from some Big Company like Oracle/HP, we can sponsor
them as well as normal guys.
See an example of mindi-busybox, packager from HP still
On 10/21/2013 09:38 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
* Oldest request is from 2008(!) - but there are recent work on this BZ.
Probably the same reasons as with the normal review requests.
Sometimes reviews have stalled because of bundled libs, licensing troubles,
missing deps, waiting for
On 17/10/13 05:30 AM, Matthew Miller wrote:
I agree; this is a problem. (In general, I think the beg-for-review-swaps
system is not friendly to new contributors.) I see that you applied for
sponsorship https://fedorahosted.org/packager-sponsors/ticket/90 but there
wasn't enough activity on the
On Tue, 22 Oct 2013 08:59:28 +0200, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
On 10/21/2013 09:38 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
* Oldest request is from 2008(!) - but there are recent work on this BZ.
Probably the same reasons as with the normal review requests.
Sometimes reviews have stalled because of
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 08:26:54PM +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
Correct. Less lists (or the same lists) and with a more well-defined
target group and description.
So, in the not so far future, we'll have mailman3 and hyperkitty, and we
want to migrate the lists to that. That switchover point
Kevin Fenzi (ke...@scrye.com) said:
As a first step, I suggest clearing up the intended usage of devel
list. There's too much traffic on that list. 792 messages so far in
October. Even if one uses filtering, the recurring task of skimming
over the devel list folder is tiresome, since it's
On 20/10/13 22:01, Pete Travis wrote:
*snip*
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group
lists, how to get sponsored. Just waiting might be a solution, but
probably not the fastest one.
Matthias
--
I don't agree with this. The sponsorship process is
On 10/17/2013 05:19 AM, Luya Tshimbalanga wrote:
I understand each one of us is busy with their life but a simple message would
suffice to let know about the status. Is
there a better way to address this concern to avoid repeating it in the future?
Some numbers FYI:
* We have 117 sponsors
Hi,
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 2:32 PM, Miroslav Suchý msu...@redhat.com wrote:
On 10/17/2013 05:19 AM, Luya Tshimbalanga wrote:
I understand each one of us is busy with their life but a simple message
would suffice to let know about the status. Is
there a better way to address this concern to
On 10/21/2013 03:28 PM, Parag N(पराग़) wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 2:32 PM, Miroslav Suchý msu...@redhat.com
mailto:msu...@redhat.com wrote:
On 10/17/2013 05:19 AM, Luya Tshimbalanga wrote:
I understand each one of us is busy with their life but a simple
message would
Hi,
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 7:08 PM, Miroslav Suchý msu...@redhat.com wrote:
On 10/21/2013 03:28 PM, Parag N(पराग़) wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 2:32 PM, Miroslav Suchý msu...@redhat.commailto:
msu...@redhat.com wrote:
On 10/17/2013 05:19 AM, Luya Tshimbalanga wrote:
On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 01:42:37AM +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
A few years ago we've been much better at talking about things and
coming to a conclusion. Nowadays I have the feeling the community
is fragmented too much. With some people avoiding mailing-lists like
the plague, some people
On 21 October 2013 07:52, Matthew Miller mat...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 01:42:37AM +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
A few years ago we've been much better at talking about things and
coming to a conclusion. Nowadays I have the feeling the community
is fragmented too
On Mon, 21 Oct 2013 09:52:32 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
A few years ago we've been much better at talking about things and
coming to a conclusion. Nowadays I have the feeling the community
is fragmented too much. With some people avoiding mailing-lists like
the plague, some people
On 10/21/2013 04:08 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
The intended usage of test list has always been a problem. Once in a
while, somebody points that out, but there's nobody (no leadership) to
work on a change actively. Is it only for Test releases or also for
Rawhide? Its description is vague. Is
On Mon, 21 Oct 2013 18:08:09 +0200
Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, 21 Oct 2013 09:52:32 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
A few years ago we've been much better at talking about things and
coming to a conclusion. Nowadays I have the feeling the
community is fragmented
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 12:26 PM, Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com wrote:
Good idea. What items could we move to announce that would be more
useful for folks that don't have as much time/energy to skim the main
list?
I'm assuming you're referring to the devel-announce list, and not the
general
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 06:08:09PM +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
I have this same feeling. I think we need to fix it; do you have any
thoughts or ideas as to how?
If people hate email lists in general (or the number of messages posted
to them), it cannot be fixed.
Hmmm; I don't know if
On 10/21/2013 06:08 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Mon, 21 Oct 2013 09:52:32 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
A few years ago we've been much better at talking about things and
coming to a conclusion. Nowadays I have the feeling the community
is fragmented too much. With some people avoiding
On 21 October 2013 11:08, Matthew Miller mat...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 10:00:59AM -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
Don't we have this same conversation every two years? With pretty much
the
same questions and feeling of disconnectedness? We fix a couple of
On Mon, 21 Oct 2013 16:23:29 +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
The intended usage of test list has always been a problem. Once in a
while, somebody points that out, but there's nobody (no leadership) to
work on a change actively. Is it only for Test releases or also for
Rawhide? Its
On 10/21/2013 05:25 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
So, discussing Test Updates for stable dist releases belongs onto which
list?
According to some in the QA community ( at least in the past ) any GA
release test topic ( like update testing ) belongs on the user list.
JBG
--
devel mailing list
Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
According to some in the QA community ( at least in the past ) any GA release
test topic ( like update testing ) belongs on the user list.
If that's true then the updates-testing mail for N and N-1 need to go to the
user list.
--
devel mailing list
On 10/21/2013 05:44 PM, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
According to some in the QA community ( at least in the past ) any GA
release
test topic ( like update testing ) belongs on the user list.
If that's true then the updates-testing mail for N and N-1 need to go
to
On Mon, 21 Oct 2013 13:07:25 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
As a first step, I suggest clearing up the intended usage of devel list.
There's too much traffic on that list. 792 messages so far in October.
This is way down from the peak 5-7 years ago.
What is the reason? More people avoiding
On 21 October 2013 11:48, Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, 21 Oct 2013 13:07:25 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
As a first step, I suggest clearing up the intended usage of devel
list.
There's too much traffic on that list. 792 messages so far in October.
This is way
On Mon, 21 Oct 2013 19:16:53 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 10/21/2013 06:08 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Mon, 21 Oct 2013 09:52:32 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
A few years ago we've been much better at talking about things and
coming to a conclusion. Nowadays I have the feeling the
On Mon, 21 Oct 2013 11:57:06 -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
I am not saying shut-up but I am saying that I am confused by what you
mean. First you seem to advocate more lists,
That could be a misunderstanding. Have I've phrased something very poorly.
Then please tell and give me a chance
On Mon, 21 Oct 2013 17:47:12 +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 10/21/2013 05:44 PM, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
According to some in the QA community ( at least in the past ) any GA
release
test topic ( like update testing ) belongs on the user list.
On Mon, 21 Oct 2013 11:02:57 +0200, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
On 10/17/2013 05:19 AM, Luya Tshimbalanga wrote:
I understand each one of us is busy with their life but a simple message
would suffice to let know about the status. Is
there a better way to address this concern to avoid repeating
On Mon, 21 Oct 2013 21:38:18 +0200
Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com wrote:
Is the following page wrong?
http://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/NEEDSPONSOR.html
I see 59 people on that list.
(many have more than 1 review they have filed)
Not sure where the 191 number comes from?
On 10/21/2013 07:48 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Mon, 21 Oct 2013 13:07:25 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
As a first step, I suggest clearing up the intended usage of devel list.
There's too much traffic on that list. 792 messages so far in October.
This is way down from the peak 5-7 years
On 17/10/13 15:56, مصعب الزعبي wrote:
LOL ^_^
I have 7 review requests , 5 of them ready , but no sponsors !!!
On the other side, just complaining won't help anyone. Given, everybody
is more or less overloaded, it would help you in reviewing others
packages as well, even IF you're NOT in
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I think better solution is everyone (sponsors, packagers, packager
candidates) must go one step further.
We all have important works to do outside of Fedora Project and one
cannot pretend special attentions from others quickly.
I myself thought that
Hi,
as a first advice: Please do not top post:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines#If_You_Are_Replying_to_a_Message
On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 03:56:00PM +0200, مصعب الزعبي wrote:
LOL ^_^
I have 7 review requests , 5 of them ready , but no sponsors !!!
If you provided links
*snip*
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group
lists, how to get sponsored. Just waiting might be a solution, but
probably not the fastest one.
Matthias
--
I don't agree with this. The sponsorship process is as much an
introduction to the community as
On Fri, 18 Oct 2013 16:31:49 -0600
Ken Dreyer ktdre...@ktdreyer.com wrote:
If this really is the consensus of the Fedora community, then I would
prefer that the guidelines on the wiki be specifically amended to
require this. IMHO the language in the guidelines is simply too vague
about this
On Sat, 19 Oct 2013 16:22:58 -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Fri, 18 Oct 2013 16:31:49 -0600 Ken Dreyer wrote:
If this really is the consensus of the Fedora community, then I would
prefer that the guidelines on the wiki be specifically amended to
require this. IMHO the language in the
On 17/10/13 06:45 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
However, activity log shows that you've assigned the ticket to
yourself on 2013-03-14 without being a sponsor. The first submitted
package of a new packager must be reviewed and approved by a sponsor.
Assigning the ticket could result in other
Dan Horák wrote:
I think it was me who promised to sponsor Peter. Being fully loaded
with other work I waited for seeing the plus set for the review flag.
Well, the idea is that the sponsor is the one who sets the fedora-review+
flag for the new contributor's first review. I know the process
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 1:39 PM, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote:
Dan Horák wrote:
I think it was me who promised to sponsor Peter. Being fully loaded
with other work I waited for seeing the plus set for the review flag.
Well, the idea is that the sponsor is the one who sets the
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 08:19:11PM -0700, Luya Tshimbalanga wrote:
Considering the reporter is also a entrepreneur who took the time to
port some of upstream packages to Fedora, I am utterly disappointed
by the lack of communication from the sponsors for a simple task.
The fact the reporter
Matthew Miller wrote:
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 08:19:11PM -0700, Luya Tshimbalanga wrote:
Considering the reporter is also a entrepreneur who took the time to
port some of upstream packages to Fedora, I am utterly disappointed
by the lack of communication from the sponsors for a simple task.
On Wed, 16 Oct 2013 20:19:11 -0700, Luya Tshimbalanga wrote:
Hello developers and packagers,
I recently received an email from the reporter[1] from rhbz #913289.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=913289
related to the sponsorship. The review was done. One of sponsors
promised
On Thu, 17 Oct 2013 15:45:01 +0200
Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, 16 Oct 2013 20:19:11 -0700, Luya Tshimbalanga wrote:
Hello developers and packagers,
I recently received an email from the reporter[1] from rhbz
#913289.
LOL ^_^
I have 7 review requests , 5 of them ready , but no sponsors !!!
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 20:19:11 -0700
From: l...@fedoraproject.org
To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Subject: Lack of response about sponsorship
Hello developers and packagers,
I recently
On Thu, 17 Oct 2013 15:56:00 +0200, مصعب الزعبي wrote:
LOL ^_^
I have 7 review requests , 5 of them ready , but no sponsors !!!
Not true. You've had feedback from a sponsor already, but they are not
marked as such in bugzilla, so you don't know that it is a potential
sponsor for you.
Hello developers and packagers,
I recently received an email from the reporter[1] from rhbz #913289.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=913289
related to the sponsorship. The review was done. One of sponsors
promised to take care of that step
which never came to fruition. It has been
81 matches
Mail list logo
