On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 18:20:35 +0200
Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Luke Macken wrote:
> > - The submitter of an update can no longer effect the karma (Till
> > Maas)
>
> Uh, last I checked, FESCo had agreed that this should NOT be enforced
> by the software because it is legitimate for the submitter to gi
Luke Macken wrote:
> - The submitter of an update can no longer effect the karma (Till Maas)
Uh, last I checked, FESCo had agreed that this should NOT be enforced by the
software because it is legitimate for the submitter to give karma by proxy
when an anonymous tester has done the required test
On Thu, 2012-08-09 at 17:53 -0400, Luke Macken wrote:
> - Re-organized the links on the front page, and link to the new Update
> Feedback Guidelines
Thanks a lot for that!
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora
http://www.happy
Thomas Janssen wrote:
> Another BTW, if you think you have to write "something", a simple
> 'thank you for stepping up' would have been enough.
Well, yes, thank you for stepping up, your help is very much appreciated! I
didn't mean to offend you!
(And thanks to Rex Dieter as well, by the way.)
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 9:51 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Thomas Janssen wrote:
>> I'm part of the KDE SIG. I will apply today for proventester to become
>> the KDE proventester.
>
> Actually, Rex Dieter already started the application process, so you'll
> probably become "a" KDE proventester, not "t
Thomas Janssen wrote:
> I'm part of the KDE SIG. I will apply today for proventester to become
> the KDE proventester.
Actually, Rex Dieter already started the application process, so you'll
probably become "a" KDE proventester, not "the" KDE proventester. ;-)
But the more proventesters we have,
Adam Williamson wrote:
> To me, that reads more like a problem with the update submission system
> than anything. I'd like to see far fewer restrictions on it (just like
> I'd like for koji), so you could edit the existing update to add your
> packages. This same issue exists even without feedback
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 1:53 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-08-18 at 01:37 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> Adam Williamson wrote:
>> > As several people have pointed out, there's a fundamental inconsistency
>> > in your position - you can't simultaneously claim that lots of people
>> > ar
On Wed, 2010-08-18 at 03:17 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> That particular update was not submitted by us, but by the guy who did all
> the Python 2.7 rebuilds.
>
> The annoying thing is, I have a newer KDevelop build (an upgrade to an
> upstream point release) I want to push to testing, but as l
Adam Williamson wrote:
> Admittedly, yeah, +1ing an update you did yourself is bad form.
Actually, FESCo said that Bodhi should not count such self-voted karma at
all. If it still does, that's a feature which is likely to go away very
soon. :-(
> Then advise the KDE team to submit updates with
On Wed, 2010-08-18 at 01:37 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Adam Williamson wrote:
> > As several people have pointed out, there's a fundamental inconsistency
> > in your position - you can't simultaneously claim that lots of people
> > are frothing at the mouth for new releases of KDE, but it's reall
Adam Williamson wrote:
> As several people have pointed out, there's a fundamental inconsistency
> in your position - you can't simultaneously claim that lots of people
> are frothing at the mouth for new releases of KDE, but it's really hard
> to find anyone to test the updates. If there's so many
On Tue, 2010-08-17 at 13:29 +0200, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
> Most problems in updates are task for Auto QA, not a very strict policy (I
> would say it's more strict than RHEL updates :))). And I'm not completely
This is clearly hyperbole. Really, we've pointed out multiple times that
all you nee
Tomas Mraz wrote:
> But note, that nothing in the Fedora update policy changes would prevent
> from the same push during the _development_ phase either. So you might
> be dissatisfied with the KDE-4.0 in F9 but this can happen with other
> packages or package stacks in new Fedora releases regardles
Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
> And we did it - now we can slow down - we'd like to go with one major
> update for a Fedora release.
Maybe you do. :-) I don't. I believe that all Fedora releases deserve the
same kind of update support until their respective EOL.
Kevin Kofler
--
devel mailing
Bill Nottingham wrote:
> You can build some faster-moving feature packages on top of a stable base
> for those that want it.
In theory you can. In practice that turns out to work rather poorly. It's
the model several other distros are using; their "feature updates"
repositories are always underu
On Saturday, August 14, 2010 07:57:27 pm Martin Sourada wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-08-14 at 19:05 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > Martin Sourada wrote:
> > > I still remember the epic fail of having KDE 4.0 in stable fedora
> >
> > * I still think the KDE 4.0.3 we shipped in F9 wasn't that bad. We fixed
Ryan Rix (r...@n.rix.si) said:
> available (sometimes in front of it)... Yet even now, we can't keep up with
> what (some of) our users want: the latest KDE, on KDE's release day, whether
> it's a major release, or a point release. Yes, not every one of our users is
> this way, but many are, an
On Friday, August 13, 2010 07:21:50 pm Martin Sourada wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-08-13 at 17:17 +0200, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
> > On Friday, August 13, 2010 05:09:17 pm Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > > Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
> > > > Then we have to push broken updates, policy says so and it's ok, so
> > > > le
Toshio Kuratomi (a.bad...@gmail.com) said:
> So I've kept my voice out of this... and hopefully, now that you know that
> it's not just hte KDE SIG, I can go back to doing so again.
... how does that help?
You've mentioned that you don't like 'this change' ... which part of it are
you referring
On Sat, 2010-08-14 at 19:57 +0200, Martin Sourada wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-08-14 at 19:05 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > * Version updates, the very ones you complain about, brought that 4.0 up to
> > 4.1 and later 4.2. I used F9 on my main machine from F8's EOL up to F9's
> > EOL. F9 with KDE 4.2
On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 13:09, List Troll wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 8:05 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> Martin Sourada wrote:
>>> I still remember the epic fail of having KDE 4.0 in stable fedora
>>
>> * I still think the KDE 4.0.3 we shipped in F9 wasn't that bad. We fixed all
>> the showstop
On Fri, 2010-08-13 at 22:59 +0200, Julian Sikorski wrote:
> Is the karma getting reset upon an edit?
I don't have an answer to the question, but FYI, there is an open ticket
about it:
https://fedorahosted.org/bodhi/ticket/388
--
Matt
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https:/
On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 4:08 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-08-14 at 19:44 +0200, Martin Sourada wrote:
>
>> The only thing I don't understand completely (but can accept without
>> complaining nevertheless) is why this applies to *new* packages as well
>> -- they didn't existed in repos
On Sat, 2010-08-14 at 19:44 +0200, Martin Sourada wrote:
> The only thing I don't understand completely (but can accept without
> complaining nevertheless) is why this applies to *new* packages as well
> -- they didn't existed in repos before and anything is better than
> nothing...
Same objectio
On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 8:05 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Martin Sourada wrote:
>> I still remember the epic fail of having KDE 4.0 in stable fedora
>
> * I still think the KDE 4.0.3 we shipped in F9 wasn't that bad. We fixed all
> the showstoppers before F9 was released, and were also quick to ship
New packages can break existing systems. Leak ram, eat filesystems, leak
personal data, leak root, dos a system, etc...
--
Sent from my Android phone. Please excuse my brevity, lack of trimming, and top
posting.
"Martin Sourada" wrote:
>On Sat, 2010-08-14 at 19:14 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
On Sat, 2010-08-14 at 19:05 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Martin Sourada wrote:
> > I still remember the epic fail of having KDE 4.0 in stable fedora
>
> * I still think the KDE 4.0.3 we shipped in F9 wasn't that bad. We fixed all
> the showstoppers before F9 was released, and were also quick to
On Sat, 2010-08-14 at 19:14 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Martin Sourada wrote:
> > Seeing your mail, you more or less agree with this. So why exactly are
> > you against the policy explicitly requiring either positive karma or
> > some minimal time in testing (setting aside some current shrotcommi
On 08/14/2010 07:17 AM, Till Maas wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 07:07:44PM -0400, Luke Macken wrote:
>
>> I just pushed out a fix that should allow you to edit updates with your
>> local development instance.
>
> Thank you very much, it works. Patches for the autokarma javascript will
> soon be
Martin Sourada wrote:
> Seeing your mail, you more or less agree with this. So why exactly are
> you against the policy explicitly requiring either positive karma or
> some minimal time in testing (setting aside some current shrotcommings
> of the implementation like resetting the timer on bug upda
Martin Sourada wrote:
> I still remember the epic fail of having KDE 4.0 in stable fedora
* I still think the KDE 4.0.3 we shipped in F9 wasn't that bad. We fixed all
the showstoppers before F9 was released, and were also quick to ship updates
fixing more annoyances, including updates to later 4
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 07:07:44PM -0400, Luke Macken wrote:
> I just pushed out a fix that should allow you to edit updates with your
> local development instance.
Thank you very much, it works. Patches for the autokarma javascript will
soon be attached to bodhi's trac. With these, there is onl
On Sat, 2010-08-14 at 10:32 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Martin Sourada wrote:
> > There are also bazillion distributions out there who are on the bleeding
> > edge.
>
> But none that have the current stuff without blatant breakage as updates to
> the stable releases, and ship the exciting but di
On Sat, 2010-08-14 at 11:07 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> David Malcolm wrote:
> > I think that a distinction can be made between core packages that many
> > different components depend upon versus "leaf" packages that do their
> > own thing and no other component relies on. I do think we should be
On Sat, 14 Aug 2010 11:33:02 +0200, Kevin wrote:
> > I've always warned about mass-pushing updates to multiple dists,
> > and I'm glad I'm not the only one.
>
> EPEL is an entirely different matter, since:
> * there are literally YEARS between the RHEL releases and
> * RHEL has a very conservativ
W dniu 14.08.2010 00:12, Kevin Fenzi pisze:
> On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 23:17:39 +0200
> Sven Lankes wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 07:21:50PM +0200, Martin Sourada wrote:
>>
>>> I wonder why I get the impression that the only ones who strongly
>>> oppose this change are you folks from KDE SIG...
W dniu 14.08.2010 11:08, Kevin Kofler pisze:
> Adam Williamson wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 2010-08-13 at 17:54 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>>> in the past due to regressions which are already fixed in the current
>>> edited version. (Yes, update groups will be edited instead of obsoleted
>>> if we
>>
>> Pl
Michael Schwendt wrote:
> +1, +10, +1000 … happens with Fedora and also with Fedora EPEL.
> I've always warned about mass-pushing updates to multiple dists,
> and I'm glad I'm not the only one.
EPEL is an entirely different matter, since:
* there are literally YEARS between the RHEL releases and
*
On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 12:12:47 -0400, seth wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-08-13 at 18:07 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > Al Dunsmuir wrote:
> > > You are assuming that it is somehow a good idea to push release Fn, in
> > > spite of no (or negative) testing.
> >
> > Yes I am! If I build the EXACT SAME specfil
Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-08-13 at 17:54 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> in the past due to regressions which are already fixed in the current
>> edited version. (Yes, update groups will be edited instead of obsoleted
>> if we
>
> Please stop mixing minor bugs in the process in with hig
David Malcolm wrote:
> I think that a distinction can be made between core packages that many
> different components depend upon versus "leaf" packages that do their
> own thing and no other component relies on. I do think we should be
> conservative when updating core components in released versi
Sven Lankes wrote:
> I for one have decided that I'm going to stop contributing if the
> 'Stable Update Vision' is going to be implemented as currently
> discussed. If the powers that be are going to stop maintainers from
> issuing updates that are not security or bugfix updates then fedora will
>
Martin Sourada wrote:
> There are also bazillion distributions out there who are on the bleeding
> edge.
But none that have the current stuff without blatant breakage as updates to
the stable releases, and ship the exciting but disruptive changes in new
releases every 6 months, while still suppo
On Fri 13 August 2010 11:36:09 Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Kevin Kofler said:
> > If we really are the only ones true to Fedora's original principles
>
> As I recall, "upstream, upstream, upstream" was one of those principles
> that you are demanding others now break.
And the same pol
On Fri, 2010-08-13 at 17:54 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Till Maas wrote:
> > Bodhi also allows you to edit the stable karma value and unless it is
> > implemented differently (or has changed again), you can just use a
> > stable karma value of 1 and ask someone except the update submitter to
> > p
On 08/13/2010 10:16 AM, Till Maas wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 05:57:28PM -0400, Luke Macken wrote:
>
>> - Show 7 days worth of entries in our RSS feeds, as opposed to 20
>> entries (https://fedorahosted.org/bodhi/ticket/339)
>
> This is nice, I forgot to add myself to the CC list, so I did
On Fri, 2010-08-13 at 16:12 -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 23:17:39 +0200
> Sven Lankes wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 07:21:50PM +0200, Martin Sourada wrote:
> >
> > > I wonder why I get the impression that the only ones who strongly
> > > oppose this change are you folks
On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 23:17:39 +0200
Sven Lankes wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 07:21:50PM +0200, Martin Sourada wrote:
>
> > I wonder why I get the impression that the only ones who strongly
> > oppose this change are you folks from KDE SIG... Are you doing
> > things differently from anyone el
On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 15:39:59 -0400
Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> I'm negative towards this change and not part of the KDE SIG but don't
> really like to clutter up the mailing lists with a bunch of negative
> energy. And I don't like the way it makes me feel about Fedora to
> continually try to get a
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 07:21:50PM +0200, Martin Sourada wrote:
> I wonder why I get the impression that the only ones who strongly
> oppose this change are you folks from KDE SIG... Are you doing things
> differently from anyone else in fedora - the rest of us are either
> more or less neutral or
W dniu 13.08.2010 01:12, Orcan Ogetbil pisze:
> On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 5:57 PM, Luke Macken wrote:
>> - Minimum time-in-testing requirements
>> - Every day bodhi will look for updates that have been
>> in testing for N days (fedora: N=7, epel: N=14), and will
>>
On Fri, 2010-08-13 at 20:14 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Martin Sourada wrote:
> > I wonder why I get the impression that the only ones who strongly oppose
> > this change are you folks from KDE SIG... Are you doing things
> > differently from anyone else in fedora - the rest of us are either more
On Fri, 2010-08-13 at 20:17 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Martin Sourada wrote:
> > I wonder why I get the impression that the only ones who strongly oppose
> > this change are you folks from KDE SIG... Are you doing things
> > differently from anyone else in fedora - the rest of us are either more
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 07:21:50PM +0200, Martin Sourada wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-08-13 at 17:17 +0200, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
> > On Friday, August 13, 2010 05:09:17 pm Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > > Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
> > > > Then we have to push broken updates, policy says so and it's ok, so
> > >
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 08:20:04PM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Chris Adams wrote:
> > What if it isn't a bug, but just different behavior?
>
> Do you really think it's acceptable for a library to terminate the whole
> application when an error happens??? There's a reason rpmlint complains
> lou
Bug or not, changing the behavior of a library is not something to be done
without coordination and consideration and cooperation. Our releases are not
rawhide, stuff can't be rammed in whenever upstream bumps a number.
We are off on a tangent here, the point is that our releases have differen
Jesse Keating wrote:
> Doing so would have changed behavior and broken software that relied upon
> that behavior. Sounds like a great way to run the distro
Software relying on an error in a library to terminate the whole
application, as opposed to raising an interceptable exception? Is there
Once upon a time, Kevin Kofler said:
> If we really are the only ones true to Fedora's original principles
As I recall, "upstream, upstream, upstream" was one of those principles
that you are demanding others now break.
--
Chris Adams
Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Service
Till Maas wrote:
> The same people that provided the -1 karma can provide a +1 karma. And
> you only need have of these people to change their karma vote to get
> back to zero karma. This should also not be a major problem, unless
> there are people providing unjustified -1 karma to cause problems.
Martin Sourada wrote:
> I wonder why I get the impression that the only ones who strongly oppose
> this change are you folks from KDE SIG... Are you doing things
> differently from anyone else in fedora - the rest of us are either more
> or less neutral or positive towards this new change?
Oh, and
Chris Adams wrote:
> What if it isn't a bug, but just different behavior?
Do you really think it's acceptable for a library to terminate the whole
application when an error happens??? There's a reason rpmlint complains
loudly about "shared-library-calls-exit".
Kevin Kofler
--
devel ma
On 08/13/2010 01:23 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
> Doing so would have changed behavior and broken software that relied upon
> that behavior. Sounds like a great way to run the distro
>
With that attitude, how would we ever change gcc versions in a stable
release? ;)
-J
> "Kevin Kofler"
On Fri, 2010-08-13 at 20:14 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Martin Sourada wrote:
> > I wonder why I get the impression that the only ones who strongly oppose
> > this change are you folks from KDE SIG... Are you doing things
> > differently from anyone else in fedora - the rest of us are either more
Doing so would have changed behavior and broken software that relied upon that
behavior. Sounds like a great way to run the distro
"Kevin Kofler" wrote:
>seth vidal wrote:
>> and that's what the testing helped with. The bug was noticed. It was
>> patched upstream to accomodate the versions
seth vidal wrote:
> and that's what the testing helped with. The bug was noticed. It was
> patched upstream to accomodate the versions of sqlite that act
> differently and we moved along.
>
> So, in fact, testing worked exactly as we wanted it to.
But if SQLite had consistently been tracking upst
Martin Sourada wrote:
> I wonder why I get the impression that the only ones who strongly oppose
> this change are you folks from KDE SIG... Are you doing things
> differently from anyone else in fedora - the rest of us are either more
> or less neutral or positive towards this new change?
If we r
On Fri, 2010-08-13 at 12:43 -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Kevin Kofler said:
> > I tried many things, even running for FESCo and getting voted in. As you
> > can
> > see, it didn't achieve anything either.
>
> Is it impossible for you to accept the fact that not everybody agrees
Once upon a time, Kevin Kofler said:
> The people who voted them in were a small minority
As were the people that voted you in. Does that invalidate your FESCo
standing as well?
> I tried many things, even running for FESCo and getting voted in. As you can
> see, it didn't achieve anything eit
Once upon a time, Kevin Kofler said:
> Jesse Keating wrote:
> > This is where Kevin blames the scenario on not having the same sqlite on
> > all of the Fedora releases, which is another evil plot hatched by the
> > devils of FESCo
>
> Right. If F12 has a buggy SQLite, then that SQLite should
On Fri, 2010-08-13 at 13:30 -0400, Al Dunsmuir wrote:
> On Friday, August 13, 2010, 1:11:49 PM, Kevin wrote:
> > Jesse Keating wrote:
> >> This is where Kevin blames the scenario on not having the same sqlite on
> >> all of the Fedora releases, which is another evil plot hatched by the
> >> devils
On Friday, August 13, 2010, 1:11:49 PM, Kevin wrote:
> Jesse Keating wrote:
>> This is where Kevin blames the scenario on not having the same sqlite on
>> all of the Fedora releases, which is another evil plot hatched by the
>> devils of FESCo
> Right. If F12 has a buggy SQLite, then that SQLi
seth vidal wrote:
> On f12, however, the version of sqlite that f12 had handles an error
> condition differently than on f13 and f14. It meant that instead of
> raise an exception and letting us move along that it raised an exception
> and then exited.
Jesse already anticipated my reply there. :-)
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 05:54:30PM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Till Maas wrote:
> > Bodhi also allows you to edit the stable karma value and unless it is
> > implemented differently (or has changed again), you can just use a
> > stable karma value of 1 and ask someone except the update submitter t
On Fri, 2010-08-13 at 17:17 +0200, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
> On Friday, August 13, 2010 05:09:17 pm Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
> > > Then we have to push broken updates, policy says so and it's ok, so let's
> > > do it
> > >
> > > :(
> >
> > A policy requiring us to push somet
Jesse Keating wrote:
> This is where Kevin blames the scenario on not having the same sqlite on
> all of the Fedora releases, which is another evil plot hatched by the
> devils of FESCo
Right. If F12 has a buggy SQLite, then that SQLite should be fixed!
Kevin Kofler
--
devel mailing
Luke Macken wrote:
> The only case for update starvation that I can think of is if you keep
> adding/removing builds from an update before it reaches a week in
> testing or the karma thresholds.
For any large update group, that's just always going to happen. There's
always another important fix y
On 08/13/2010 06:45 PM, Luke Macken wrote:
> On 08/13/2010 01:57 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>> On 08/13/2010 01:23 AM, Luke Macken wrote:
>>> On 08/12/2010 07:12 PM, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 5:57 PM, Luke Macken wrote:
> - Minimum time-in-testing requirements
>
On 08/13/2010 05:10 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Ralf Corsepius wrote:
I think, for packages that are modified during the testing period,
this N should be calculated from the day the last push was made to
testing.
>>
>> This would very unhelpful.
>>
>>> Yes, this was my initial intentio
On 08/12/2010 07:47 PM, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 5:57 PM, Luke Macken wrote:
>>- Minimum time-in-testing requirements
>>- When someone tries to push an update to stable, bodhi will
>> look to see if it has the appropriate karma, or if it has
>>
Nathanael D. Noblet wrote:
> However you don't want to let other people decide anything. You want
> patches FF and kernel in so you get to do it, you want to push updates
> without any testing required so you get to. To hell with whatever anyone
> else wants, and when there is an organization put i
On 08/13/2010 01:57 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 08/13/2010 01:23 AM, Luke Macken wrote:
>> On 08/12/2010 07:12 PM, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
>>> On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 5:57 PM, Luke Macken wrote:
- Minimum time-in-testing requirements
- Every day bodhi will look for u
On 08/13/2010 11:29 AM, Till Maas wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 01:27:18AM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>
>> "fix" breaks that. Plus, edits can also be only to the description or bug
>> references, Bodhi doesn't allow me to edit those without editing the whole
>> update.
>
> Bodhi also allows you
On 08/13/2010 07:20 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 17:57:28 -0400, Luke wrote:
>
>> A new version of bodhi has just hit production. This release contains
>> a number of bugfixes and improvements, along with some important process
>> changes.
>
>> - Minimum time-in-testin
This is where Kevin blames the scenario on not having the same sqlite on all of
the Fedora releases, which is another evil plot hatched by the devils of
FESCo
"seth vidal" wrote:
>On Fri, 2010-08-13 at 18:07 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> Al Dunsmuir wrote:
>> > You are assuming that it is
On Fri, 2010-08-13 at 18:07 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Al Dunsmuir wrote:
> > You are assuming that it is somehow a good idea to push release Fn, in
> > spite of no (or negative) testing.
>
> Yes I am! If I build the EXACT SAME specfile for all F*, then I don't see
> why testing on ANY F* isn't
Al Dunsmuir wrote:
> You are assuming that it is somehow a good idea to push release Fn, in
> spite of no (or negative) testing.
Yes I am! If I build the EXACT SAME specfile for all F*, then I don't see
why testing on ANY F* isn't sufficient. Please don't bring the same old
argument that "someti
Till Maas wrote:
> Bodhi also allows you to edit the stable karma value and unless it is
> implemented differently (or has changed again), you can just use a
> stable karma value of 1 and ask someone except the update submitter to
> provide the +1 karma and the update can be pushed to stable. This
On 08/13/2010 09:08 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
>> It would hurt all sides - it would hurt Fedora, the new distribution, our
>> work in Red Hat, users and so on. And I don't understand why we can't work
>> under one roof - to make Fedora the best OS. Maybe more autonomy for SIG
Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
> It would hurt all sides - it would hurt Fedora, the new distribution, our
> work in Red Hat, users and so on. And I don't understand why we can't work
> under one roof - to make Fedora the best OS. Maybe more autonomy for SIGs
> could help as Kevin proposed?
Yeah, the SIGs
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> I expect more fine tuning will be needed for these changes but thanks for
> all your work on this.
No thanks from me. By implementing FESCo's diktats defying common sense, you
broken updates for everyone.
Kevin Kofler
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproj
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>>> I think, for packages that are modified during the testing period,
>>> this N should be calculated from the day the last push was made to
>>> testing.
>
> This would very unhelpful.
>
>> Yes, this was my initial intention. However, looking at the code a bit
>> closer, y
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 01:27:18AM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> "fix" breaks that. Plus, edits can also be only to the description or bug
> references, Bodhi doesn't allow me to edit those without editing the whole
> update.
Bodhi also allows you to edit the stable karma value and unless it is
im
Hello Kevin,
On Thursday, August 12, 2010, 8:04:12 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
>> The F-(x) package will have higher EVR than the F-(x+1) one. This
>> will break the upgrade path. Is there any measures to prevent this?
> No. In fact FESCo specifically refused to consider this
On Friday, August 13, 2010 05:09:17 pm Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
> > Then we have to push broken updates, policy says so and it's ok, so let's
> > do it
> >
> > :(
>
> A policy requiring us to push something broken is broken. I'm not going to
> push broken shit.
Just irony but
Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
> Then we have to push broken updates, policy says so and it's ok, so let's
> do it
> :(
A policy requiring us to push something broken is broken. I'm not going to
push broken shit.
Kevin Kofler
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fe
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> I expect more fine tuning will be needed for these changes but thanks
> for all your work on this.
Indeed! Thanks Luke. Bodhi became much more useful with this update even
if there are a few nay-sayers.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fed
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 3:27 AM, Luke Macken wrote:
> A new version of bodhi has just hit production. This release contains
> a number of bugfixes and improvements, along with some important process
> changes.
>
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates
>
>
I expect more fine tuning will be
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 05:57:28PM -0400, Luke Macken wrote:
> - Show 7 days worth of entries in our RSS feeds, as opposed to 20
>entries (https://fedorahosted.org/bodhi/ticket/339)
This is nice, I forgot to add myself to the CC list, so I did not notice
this before.
> - Only verify the auto
On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 17:57:28 -0400, Luke wrote:
> A new version of bodhi has just hit production. This release contains
> a number of bugfixes and improvements, along with some important process
> changes.
>- Minimum time-in-testing requirements
>- Every day bodhi will look
1 - 100 of 123 matches
Mail list logo
