On 06/27/2014 09:39 PM, Yaakov Selkowitz wrote:
On 2014-06-27 07:09, Mikolaj Izdebski wrote:
On 06/26/2014 08:01 PM, Yaakov Selkowitz wrote:
As a newcomer to Fedora development, is there something else I should
doing to get these patches reviewed and committed?
I offered you on IRC applying
On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 06:02:09PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
The intention of all this is to keep the amount of patches in Fedora low and
to pay it back to upstreams iff possible.
However, in many (most?) cases this is not possible or feasible.
It is always possible to add a comment to
On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 05:55:41PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
As in many cases before, I once more have to disagree with you, because this
Please refrain from personal attacks and note the Fedora code of
conduct:
https://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Thank you
Till
--
devel mailing
Am 30.06.2014 18:37, schrieb Till Maas:
On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 05:55:41PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
As in many cases before, I once more have to disagree with you, because this
Please refrain from personal attacks and note the Fedora code of
conduct:
On Thu, 2014-06-26 at 17:50 +0200, Sandro Mani wrote:
Hi,
From time to time, I see trivial patches posted in bugzilla which end
up sitting there because the maintainer is too busy / gets bombarded
with tons of bugzilla mails and misses that particular one / whatever
reason. As a
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 12:37 PM, Till Maas opensou...@till.name wrote:
On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 05:55:41PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
As in many cases before, I once more have to disagree with you, because this
Please refrain from personal attacks and note the Fedora code of
conduct:
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 12:54:42PM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 12:37 PM, Till Maas opensou...@till.name wrote:
On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 05:55:41PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
As in many cases before, I once more have to disagree with you, because
this
Please
Am 30.06.2014 19:06, schrieb Till Maas:
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 12:54:42PM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 12:37 PM, Till Maas opensou...@till.name wrote:
On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 05:55:41PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
As in many cases before, I once more have to disagree
Since the discussion seems to have pretty much died down and the
reaction favourable, at least to the point that there is agreement that
such situations are problematic, I've submitted FESCo ticket with the
proposal [1]. Thanks for all inputs so far, and happy to hear further
suggestions.
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 07:12:06PM +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 30.06.2014 19:06, schrieb Till Maas:
If he just writes that he disagrees with me, I agree with you. But
highlighting that he disagreed with me many times in the past is
personal and has no relevance to whether or not
On 26/06/14 22:33, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jun 2014 13:01:05 -0500
Yaakov Selkowitz yselk...@redhat.com wrote:
On 2014-06-26 11:17, Richard Hughes wrote:
On 26 June 2014 17:02, Simone Caronni negativ...@gmail.com wrote:
+1 from me!
If it's a trivial patch then I think it makes sense
On 06/26/2014 09:40 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 10:42:17 -0600,
Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com wrote:
Another idea that leaps to mind is to add more provenpackagers...
have we set the bar too high so no one wants to apply?
Trivial bug fixing across the project seems to
On 06/27/2014 08:26 AM, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
I'm not sure if it's so great idea for all bugzillas. Some packagers
prefer to add patches first into upstream then carry a patch for many
releases.
This consideration actually is pretty much irrelevant when it comes to
bugs. The only thing that
On 26 June 2014 23:53, Yaakov Selkowitz yselk...@redhat.com wrote:
Here are my unreviewed patches from last week or earlier, oldest to newest:
Someone make this person a provenpackager.
Richard.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
On Thu, 26 Jun 2014 17:53:08 -0500
Yaakov Selkowitz yselk...@redhat.com wrote:
On 2014-06-26 15:33, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jun 2014 13:01:05 -0500 Yaakov Selkowitz wrote:
This seems to be particularly needed around mass rebuilds, which
IMHO should be an all-hands-on-deck time. For
On 06/27/2014 08:58 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
This consideration actually is pretty much irrelevant when it comes to
bugs. The only thing that counts is Fedora end-user experience, to whom
it's quite irrelevant who fixes a bug.
Is this really true? I'm under the impression that Fedora also
On 06/26/2014 06:42 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
Another idea that leaps to mind is to add more provenpackagers...
have we set the bar too high so no one wants to apply?
Debian has packages in collab-maint, where any Debian Developer can make
changes and upload them. In Debian, this is purely a
On 06/27/2014 10:46 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
On 06/27/2014 08:58 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
This consideration actually is pretty much irrelevant when it comes to
bugs. The only thing that counts is Fedora end-user experience, to whom
it's quite irrelevant who fixes a bug.
Is this really
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 03:27:21PM -0500, Mukundan Ragavan wrote:
Isn't it best for the project as a whole to have the bar for proven
packager high? :)
I think it is detrimental. If someone has loads of time to do bugfixes
across packages, let them. I do loads and loads of trivial bugfixes (not
On 26.06.2014 21:40, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 10:42:17 -0600,
Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com wrote:
Another idea that leaps to mind is to add more provenpackagers...
have we set the bar too high so no one wants to apply?
Trivial bug fixing across the project seems to be
On 06/26/2014 08:01 PM, Yaakov Selkowitz wrote:
On 2014-06-26 11:17, Richard Hughes wrote:
On 26 June 2014 17:02, Simone Caronni negativ...@gmail.com wrote:
+1 from me!
If it's a trivial patch then I think it makes sense to just do it.
From someone that touches hundreds of different
On Fri, 2014-06-27 at 08:58 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
This consideration actually is pretty much irrelevant when it comes
to
bugs. The only thing that counts is Fedora end-user experience, to
whom
it's quite irrelevant who fixes a bug.
In other words, if bug affects users, these
On Fri, 2014-06-27 at 12:48 +0200, Sandro Mani wrote:
So just to clarify here: the idea behind my proposal is not
necessarily
to aid people who often fix large number of small bugs across
packages,
for such people it is best if they applied for proven packager
status.
What I'm more
On Fri, 27 Jun 2014 10:47:09 +0200
Florian Weimer fwei...@redhat.com wrote:
On 06/26/2014 06:42 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
Another idea that leaps to mind is to add more provenpackagers...
have we set the bar too high so no one wants to apply?
Debian has packages in collab-maint, where any
On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 10:05:31AM +0200, Dan Horák wrote:
oh, that's an impressive list, but I would like see to one more thing
there - links to upstream bug reports where relevant (eg. fixing
configure stuff), because we usually need them fixed in upstreams too
Yes, I missed this as well.
On 2014-06-27 10:17, Till Maas wrote:
Yes, I missed this as well. Also IIRC the guidelines demand an patch
status comment for each patch in the spec file, so just adding patch
without noting why it is not upstreamable or information about when/how
it was upstreamed is bad and should IMHO not be
Hi
On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 11:36 AM, Yaakov Selkowitz wrote:
On 2014-06-27 10:17, Till Maas wrote:
Yes, I missed this as well. Also IIRC the guidelines demand an patch
status comment for each patch in the spec file, so just adding patch
without noting why it is not upstreamable or
- Original Message -
- Should this be rawhide only? That would avoid 'trivial' patches that
cause a problem from affecting users that aren't as able to debug
them.
Probably (or perhaps it could be up to the provenpackager applying the patch,
but with rawhide-only being the
- Original Message -
On 06/27/2014 08:26 AM, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
I'm not sure if it's so great idea for all bugzillas. Some packagers
prefer to add patches first into upstream then carry a patch for many
releases.
This consideration actually is pretty much irrelevant when it
On 06/27/2014 05:17 PM, Till Maas wrote:
On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 10:05:31AM +0200, Dan Horák wrote:
oh, that's an impressive list, but I would like see to one more thing
there - links to upstream bug reports where relevant (eg. fixing
configure stuff), because we usually need them fixed in
On 06/27/2014 05:50 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Hi
On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 11:36 AM, Yaakov Selkowitz wrote:
On 2014-06-27 10:17, Till Maas wrote:
Yes, I missed this as well. Also IIRC the guidelines demand an patch
status comment for each patch in the spec file, so just
On 06/27/2014 05:50 PM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
- Original Message -
- Should this be rawhide only? That would avoid 'trivial' patches that
cause a problem from affecting users that aren't as able to debug
them.
Probably (or perhaps it could be up to the provenpackager applying
On Fri, 27 Jun 2014 11:55:37 -0400 (EDT)
Miloslav Trmač m...@redhat.com wrote:
That’s only in some ideal case where we can get all the manpower we
might need.
Adding a non-upstream patch to a package by a non-owner of the
package essentially commits the owner of the package to either push
On 2014-06-27 07:09, Mikolaj Izdebski wrote:
On 06/26/2014 08:01 PM, Yaakov Selkowitz wrote:
As a newcomer to Fedora development, is there something else I should
doing to get these patches reviewed and committed?
I offered you on IRC applying any patches for Java packages, as this is
my area
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 10:27 PM, Mukundan Ragavan
nonamed...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
I think having a trivial patch policy and proven packager route of
implementation is a great idea!
On 06/26/2014 11:42 AM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On 27.06.2014 18:56, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
Well, I think you are talking here about a patch that changes the code
of the package. Many of the cases people were talking about for these
'trivial' or 'simple' patches didn't even touch the code... they simply
modified the spec, so have little to do
+1 from me!
On Jun 26, 2014 5:51 PM, Sandro Mani manisan...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
From time to time, I see trivial patches posted in bugzilla which end up
sitting there because the maintainer is too busy / gets bombarded with tons
of bugzilla mails and misses that particular one / whatever
Hi,
From time to time, I see trivial patches posted in bugzilla which end
up sitting there because the maintainer is too busy / gets bombarded
with tons of bugzilla mails and misses that particular one / whatever
reason. As a packager, sometimes it seems very hard to get such trivial
patches
On 26 June 2014 17:02, Simone Caronni negativ...@gmail.com wrote:
+1 from me!
If it's a trivial patch then I think it makes sense to just do it.
From someone that touches hundreds of different projects every month,
I've found it's better to ask forgiveness than permission :)
Richard
--
devel
Il 26/06/2014 18:17, Richard Hughes ha scritto:
On 26 June 2014 17:02, Simone Caronni negativ...@gmail.com wrote:
+1 from me!
If it's a trivial patch then I think it makes sense to just do it.
From someone that touches hundreds of different projects every month,
I've found it's better to ask
On Thu, 26 Jun 2014 17:17:07 +0100
Richard Hughes hughsi...@gmail.com wrote:
On 26 June 2014 17:02, Simone Caronni negativ...@gmail.com wrote:
+1 from me!
If it's a trivial patch then I think it makes sense to just do it.
From someone that touches hundreds of different projects every
On 26.06.2014 18:42, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jun 2014 17:17:07 +0100
Richard Hughes hughsi...@gmail.com wrote:
On 26 June 2014 17:02, Simone Caronni negativ...@gmail.com wrote:
+1 from me!
If it's a trivial patch then I think it makes sense to just do it.
From someone that touches
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 10:42:17AM -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
I'm not sure the entire group of provenpackagers would like to be
notified of such trivial patches waiting. Is there a group of
provenpackagers who would be willing to query for and apply these?
I am.
Another idea that leaps to
On 26.06.2014 19:04, Till Maas wrote:
IMHO there is not a huge group needed to handle on-demand provenpackager
tasks (as long as it is only required to review and apply a patch to
dist-git and potential debugging/scratch building is done before).
Good point, adding to the previous conditions
On 2014-06-26 11:17, Richard Hughes wrote:
On 26 June 2014 17:02, Simone Caronni negativ...@gmail.com wrote:
+1 from me!
If it's a trivial patch then I think it makes sense to just do it.
From someone that touches hundreds of different projects every month,
I've found it's better to ask
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 10:42:17 -0600,
Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com wrote:
Another idea that leaps to mind is to add more provenpackagers...
have we set the bar too high so no one wants to apply?
Trivial bug fixing across the project seems to be a reasonable justification
for giving out
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 6:42 PM, Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jun 2014 17:17:07 +0100
Richard Hughes hughsi...@gmail.com wrote:
On 26 June 2014 17:02, Simone Caronni negativ...@gmail.com wrote:
+1 from me!
If it's a trivial patch then I think it makes sense to just do it.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
I think having a trivial patch policy and proven packager route of
implementation is a great idea!
On 06/26/2014 11:42 AM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
provenpackagers who would be willing to query for and apply these?
Another idea that leaps to mind is
On Thu, 26 Jun 2014 13:01:05 -0500
Yaakov Selkowitz yselk...@redhat.com wrote:
On 2014-06-26 11:17, Richard Hughes wrote:
On 26 June 2014 17:02, Simone Caronni negativ...@gmail.com wrote:
+1 from me!
If it's a trivial patch then I think it makes sense to just do it.
From someone that
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 12:42 PM, Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com wrote:
I'm not sure the entire group of provenpackagers would like to be
notified of such trivial patches waiting. Is there a group of
provenpackagers who would be willing to query for and apply these?
Maybe a simple way to allow
On 26.06.2014 22:47, Jeff Backus wrote:
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 12:42 PM, Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com
mailto:ke...@scrye.com wrote:
I'm not sure the entire group of provenpackagers would like to be
notified of such trivial patches waiting. Is there a group of
provenpackagers
On 2014-06-26 15:33, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jun 2014 13:01:05 -0500 Yaakov Selkowitz wrote:
This seems to be particularly needed around mass rebuilds, which IMHO
should be an all-hands-on-deck time. For example, I've been going
through the sizable F21FTBFS list[1][2], looking for
On Fri, 27 Jun 2014 00:39:52 +0200
Sandro Mani manisan...@gmail.com wrote:
So the thing that should be avoided IMO is not defining well enough
how the procedure should work, to avoid getting swamped with patches
which require additional work to apply. The requirement to fill out
post a New
On 27.06.2014 00:55, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jun 2014 00:39:52 +0200
Sandro Mani manisan...@gmail.com wrote:
So the thing that should be avoided IMO is not defining well enough
how the procedure should work, to avoid getting swamped with patches
which require additional work to apply.
This is a really good idea.
On Thu, 2014-06-26 at 16:55 -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
- Should this be rawhide only? That would avoid 'trivial' patches that
cause a problem from affecting users that aren't as able to debug
them.
No, since the primary use for this would probably be
On Fri, 27 Jun 2014 01:27:23 +0200
Sandro Mani manisan...@gmail.com wrote:
On 27.06.2014 00:55, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
...snip...
- Not sure 'trivial' really covers the things you list in examples.
FTBFS could be more than trivial depending on the patch. Perhaps
the entire thing could be
56 matches
Mail list logo
