Am 23.10.2015 um 04:37 schrieb Kevin Kofler:
Reindl Harald wrote:
it *is* useful in case nobody reports a problem because you get the
confirmation the package not only works for you
Sorry, "it is not useful" was too strong a statement. I mean it is not *as
relevant* for the decision whether
Sérgio Basto wrote:
> Kevin, Sounds like the experiences with an update with 50 packages like
> a KDE , but most cases are just a leaf package, which a "works for me"
> is a good feedback, for me .
Even for a leaf package, it does not work. The example of 10 "works for me"
and 1 "deletes all my
On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 11:18:09AM +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>
> Am 21.10.2015 um 02:22 schrieb Kevin Kofler:
> >Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> >>The testers write "works for me" or report a new bug. When things work,
> >>there's nothing to evaluate. Doing the counting by hand is just
On Qua, 2015-10-21 at 02:22 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> > The testers write "works for me" or report a new bug. When things work,
> > there's nothing to evaluate. Doing the counting by hand is just a way to
> > waste time.
>
> 10 "works for me" and 1 "deletes
Am 21.10.2015 um 02:22 schrieb Kevin Kofler:
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
The testers write "works for me" or report a new bug. When things work,
there's nothing to evaluate. Doing the counting by hand is just a way to
waste time.
10 "works for me" and 1 "deletes all my data" do not
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> The testers write "works for me" or report a new bug. When things work,
> there's nothing to evaluate. Doing the counting by hand is just a way to
> waste time.
10 "works for me" and 1 "deletes all my data" do not make a quality of +9.
They mean a package
On Sun, 18 Oct 2015 22:03:43 +0200, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Oct 2015 21:14:25 +0200 Jan Kratochvil
> wrote:
>
> > That is a Bug of Bodhi, the URLs should be more descriptive.
> > (I have not filed it.)
>
> I thought it was filed, but I can't seem to find it
On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 15:33:38 +0200
Jan Kratochvil wrote:
> There were filed and "fixed" exactly the opposite Bugs, to switch
> from NVRA to the FEDORA-2015-7113eaf84e style:
> RFE: use update alias/updateid instead of update title in
> methods
On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 02:45:14AM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > Well, we don't know for sure that those updates lost autokarma
> > (Although it seems likely). It might be the maintainers pushed them
> > with autokarma disabled.
>
> And they should have, in any case, because
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> Seriously? When I push out an update to testing, I already have done the
> tests on it in my system, and it *think* it is correct. What would be
> the point of pushing out something that is known to be broken?
>
> The time in testing is for others to others to
On Sun, 18 Oct 2015 21:14:25 +0200
Jan Kratochvil wrote:
> That is a Bug of Bodhi, the URLs should be more descriptive.
> (I have not filed it.)
I thought it was filed, but I can't seem to find it now. ;(
If you could file one that would be great, or I can if you
Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> Well, we don't know for sure that those updates lost autokarma
> (Although it seems likely). It might be the maintainers pushed them
> with autokarma disabled.
And they should have, in any case, because autokarma is just broken by
design. Who is more qualified to decide when
> Nb. did bodhi2 stopped sending „your update reached 7 days in testing
> and can be pushed to stable” emails?
https://github.com/fedora-infra/bodhi/issues/298
Regards,
Richard
--
Richard Fearn
richardfe...@gmail.com
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
On Fri, 16 Oct 2015 14:56:11 +0200, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 10/15/2015 06:49 PM, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> > https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-11787
> > https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-4638
[...]
> >
Nb. did bodhi2 stopped sending „your update reached 7 days in testing
and can be pushed to stable” emails?
--
Tomasz Torcz ,,If you try to upissue this patchset I shall be
seeking
xmpp: zdzich...@chrome.pl an IP-routable hand grenade.'' -- Andrew Morton
(LKML)
--
devel
On Fri, 16 Oct 2015 18:48:48 +0100
Sérgio Basto wrote:
> yes , it is just autokarma thats messed up and push packages is one
> way to fix the problem ..., which is easier .
Well, we don't know for sure that those updates lost autokarma
(Although it seems likely). It might be
On Sex, 2015-10-16 at 09:00 -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 23:49:22 +0100
> Sérgio Basto wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> > We detect migration problem from bodhi 1 to 2 [1]
> >
> > Can someone workaround and push to stable, because they reached the
> > stable karma
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 10/15/2015 06:49 PM, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> Hi, We detect migration problem from bodhi 1 to 2 [1]
>
> Can someone workaround and push to stable, because they reached
> the stable karma threshold:
>
>
On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 23:49:22 +0100
Sérgio Basto wrote:
> Hi,
> We detect migration problem from bodhi 1 to 2 [1]
>
> Can someone workaround and push to stable, because they reached the
> stable karma threshold:
>
> https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-11787
>
On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 09:00:29AM -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> I'd suggest all maintainers should periodically check:
> https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/?user==testing
> For their updates that are in testing.
Noting here that there's an easy link to that url from your Bodhi
profile page
Hi,
We detect migration problem from bodhi 1 to 2 [1]
Can someone workaround and push to stable, because they reached the
stable karma threshold:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-11787
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-4638
This doesn't reached the stable
21 matches
Mail list logo