Hello,
As part of the https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/NFSv4Default feature
I am one commit away from changing the default protocol version NFS will
be using (or at least trying to use).
What does this means to you? Hopefully nothing! In theory this should
be a very seamless transition b
On Tue, 2009-09-29 at 17:33 -0400, Steve Dickson wrote:
> Buyer Beware: A Major Change in NFS is about to happen
Which means you're about a month too late in making it for Fedora 12.
Please reconsider making this change, as we're /well/ past the Feature
freeze, and since your p
On 09/29/2009 05:43 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-09-29 at 17:33 -0400, Steve Dickson wrote:
>> Buyer Beware: A Major Change in NFS is about to happen
>
> Which means you're about a month too late in making it for Fedora 12.
> Please reconsider making this
On Tue, 2009-09-29 at 17:52 -0400, Steve Dickson wrote:
> I thought today was the dead line...
>
> http://www.linux-archive.org/fedora-development/372823-all-features-need-100-beta-freeze-2009-09-29-a.html
>
> Plus all the kernel parts and the user level code have been in placed for
> a few
On Tue, 2009-09-29 at 17:52 -0400, Steve Dickson wrote:
> I thought today was the dead line...
>
> http://www.linux-archive.org/fedora-development/372823-all-features-need-100-beta-freeze-2009-09-29-a.html
>
I should mention that Beta is the deadline to have the code in what we
think is the fin
On 09/29/2009 06:13 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-09-29 at 17:52 -0400, Steve Dickson wrote:
>> I thought today was the dead line...
>>
>> http://www.linux-archive.org/fedora-development/372823-all-features-need-100-beta-freeze-2009-09-29-a.html
>>
>
> I should mention that Beta is t
On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 06:21:35PM -0400, Steve Dickson wrote:
>
>
> On 09/29/2009 06:13 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
> > On Tue, 2009-09-29 at 17:52 -0400, Steve Dickson wrote:
> >> I thought today was the dead line...
> >>
> >> http://www.linux-archive.org/fedora-development/372823-all-features-nee
On 09/29/2009 06:55 PM, Paul W. Frields wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 06:21:35PM -0400, Steve Dickson wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 09/29/2009 06:13 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2009-09-29 at 17:52 -0400, Steve Dickson wrote:
I thought today was the dead line...
http://www.linux-ar
On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 07:12:03PM -0400, Steve Dickson wrote:
> On 09/29/2009 06:55 PM, Paul W. Frields wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 06:21:35PM -0400, Steve Dickson wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On 09/29/2009 06:13 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 2009-09-29 at 17:52 -0400, Steve Dickson wrote
On Tue, 2009-09-29 at 19:16 -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote:
> > > I think that what we need, Steve, is some sort of information
> about
> > > what testing has happened up to this point that satisfies FESCo
> that
> > > this change the equivalent of moving the needle from 99% complete
> to
> > > 100%
On 09/29/2009 07:16 PM, Paul W. Frields wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 07:12:03PM -0400, Steve Dickson wrote:
>> On 09/29/2009 06:55 PM, Paul W. Frields wrote:
>>> On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 06:21:35PM -0400, Steve Dickson wrote:
On 09/29/2009 06:13 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On T
On Tue, 29 Sep 2009, Steve Dickson wrote:
> On 09/29/2009 07:16 PM, Paul W. Frields wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 07:12:03PM -0400, Steve Dickson wrote:
> >> On 09/29/2009 06:55 PM, Paul W. Frields wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 06:21:35PM -0400, Steve Dickson wrote:
>
>
> >>>
On 09/29/2009 07:29 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-09-29 at 19:16 -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote:
I think that what we need, Steve, is some sort of information
>> about
what testing has happened up to this point that satisfies FESCo
>> that
this change the equivalent of moving
Steve Dickson said the following on 09/29/2009 04:35 PM Pacific Time:
On 09/29/2009 07:16 PM, Paul W. Frields wrote:
On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 07:12:03PM -0400, Steve Dickson wrote:
On 09/29/2009 06:55 PM, Paul W. Frields wrote:
On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 06:21:35PM -0400, Steve Dickson wrote:
O
On 09/29/2009 07:52 PM, Mike McGrath wrote:
>> By no means did I interpret that at all... but here lies the
>> problem... I had no idea I would have to convenience *anybody*
>> of *anything* because I thought I made the dead line... again all
>> following was the schedule in:
>>
>> http:/
On 09/29/2009 08:17 PM, John Poelstra wrote:
>>> [...snip...]
>>>
>>> I want to be perfectly clear that I'm not sounding an "all clear" on
>>> this by any means. If your answer here means that this change hasn't
>>> been thoroughly tested, you're going to have a hard time convincing
>>> anyone tha
On 09/29/2009 05:38 PM, Steve Dickson wrote:
> On 09/29/2009 08:17 PM, John Poelstra wrote:
[...snip...]
I want to be perfectly clear that I'm not sounding an "all clear" on
this by any means. If your answer here means that this change hasn't
been thoroughly tested, you're
Once upon a time, Steve Dickson said:
> On the server (Which is suggested):
>* Add the following entry to the /etc/exports file:
> / *(ro,fsid=0) Note: 'fsid=0' is explained in the exports(5) man pages.
The "suggested solution" is to change your NFS servers (that work just
fine with othe
On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 8:15 PM, Steve Dickson wrote:
>> My main concern is with installer, installing from NFS shares from older
>> servers, say RHEL5. How will anaconda handle mounting? Will there be
>> odd errors that are difficult to figure out? Has this been tested in
>> the anaconda envir
On 09/29/2009 09:42 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Steve Dickson said:
>> On the server (Which is suggested):
>>* Add the following entry to the /etc/exports file:
>> / *(ro,fsid=0) Note: 'fsid=0' is explained in the exports(5) man pages.
>
> The "suggested solution" is to ch
On 09/29/2009 09:21 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> One thing I think is unclear this cycle is the usage of the word "Beta".
> It's been said many times that beta is not really beta but actually
> final freeze. For instance: "If all goes as planned the Beta
> (previously known as "Final Development"
On 09/29/2009 10:10 PM, Jeremy Katz wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 8:15 PM, Steve Dickson wrote:
>>> My main concern is with installer, installing from NFS shares from older
>>> servers, say RHEL5. How will anaconda handle mounting? Will there be
>>> odd errors that are difficult to figure out
On Tue, 2009-09-29 at 18:21 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> One thing I think is unclear this cycle is the usage of the word "Beta".
> It's been said many times that beta is not really beta but actually
> final freeze. For instance: "If all goes as planned the Beta
> (previously known as "Final D
Jesse Keating, Tue, 29 Sep 2009 23:45:08 -0700:
> Right, I've always taken it to mean "Our experimental code is in, and
> we're ready to take end user testing feedback on it" which is different
> from "our code is in, but not really done, and we don't care if it's
> broken because we're going to r
>> And Today I am %100 finished... Please point out which part of that
>> did I misinterpret, because the last thing I want to do is cause problems...
>>
>
> Because we do seem to fight this problem every release. Was anyone else
> confused about when the deadline was? It seems very clear to me,
Steve Dickson wrote:
> On 09/29/2009 10:10 PM, Jeremy Katz wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 8:15 PM, Steve Dickson wrote:
My main concern is with installer, installing from NFS shares from older
servers, say RHEL5. How will anaconda handle mounting? Will there be
odd errors that
On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 05:33:15PM -0400, Steve Dickson wrote:
> * Firewall Friendly- With v4 only one port is used 2049 for all traffic
> including mounting and file locking.
Amen to that!
Rich.
--
Richard Jones, Emerging Technologies, Red Hat http://et.redhat.com/~rjones
libguestfs
On 09/30/2009 04:53 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
> Steve Dickson wrote:
>> On 09/29/2009 10:10 PM, Jeremy Katz wrote:
>>> On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 8:15 PM, Steve Dickson wrote:
> My main concern is with installer, installing from NFS shares from older
> servers, say RHEL5. How will anaconda h
Steve Dickson wrote:
>
> On 09/30/2009 04:53 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
>> Steve Dickson wrote:
>>> On 09/29/2009 10:10 PM, Jeremy Katz wrote:
On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 8:15 PM, Steve Dickson wrote:
>> My main concern is with installer, installing from NFS shares from older
>> servers, sa
On 09/30/2009 06:18 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
> Steve Dickson wrote:
>>
>> On 09/30/2009 04:53 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
>>> Steve Dickson wrote:
On 09/29/2009 10:10 PM, Jeremy Katz wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 8:15 PM, Steve Dickson wrote:
>>> My main concern is with installer, ins
Steve Dickson wrote:
>
> On 09/30/2009 06:18 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
>> Steve Dickson wrote:
>>> On 09/30/2009 04:53 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
Steve Dickson wrote:
> On 09/29/2009 10:10 PM, Jeremy Katz wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 8:15 PM, Steve Dickson wrote:
My main con
Steve,
just for clarity what you are actually saying is that.
On Tue, 2009-09-29 at 22:45 -0400, Steve Dickson wrote:
> On 09/29/2009 09:42 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
> > Once upon a time, Steve Dickson said:
> >> On the server (Which is suggested):
> >>* Add the following entry to the /etc/expor
On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 06:21:04PM -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> Examples of what to do and not do from this point forward:
> Do: Have something testable
> Do: Have the the feature significantly complete
> Do: submit bugfixes
> Do not: Enable the feature by default
> Do not: Make changes that cau
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 08:36:54AM +, Matej Cepl wrote:
>Jesse Keating, Tue, 29 Sep 2009 23:45:08 -0700:
>> Right, I've always taken it to mean "Our experimental code is in, and
>> we're ready to take end user testing feedback on it" which is different
>> from "our code is in, but not really d
On 09/30/2009 07:22 AM, Howard Wilkinson wrote:
> Steve,
>
> just for clarity what you are actually saying is that.
> On Tue, 2009-09-29 at 22:45 -0400, Steve Dickson wrote:
>> On 09/29/2009 09:42 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
>>> Once upon a time, Steve Dickson said:
On the server (Which is sugges
On 09/30/2009 07:05 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
>>> I can't see how it would cause a mount storm: all you'd be doing is
>>> issuing a mount request twice, once in each protocol.
>> Times 1000 very 5 seconds...
>
> So 2000 every 5 seconds as opposed to 1000 every 5 seconds. This is
> surely better
On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 9:42 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Steve Dickson said:
>> On the server (Which is suggested):
>> * Add the following entry to the /etc/exports file:
>> / *(ro,fsid=0) Note: 'fsid=0' is explained in the exports(5) man pages.
>
> The "suggested solution"
On 09/30/2009 09:59 AM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 9:42 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
>> Once upon a time, Steve Dickson said:
>>> On the server (Which is suggested):
>>>* Add the following entry to the /etc/exports file:
>>> / *(ro,fsid=0) Note: 'fsid=0' is explained in t
Mike McGrath wrote:
> Because we do seem to fight this problem every release. Was anyone else
> confused about when the deadline was? It seems very clear to me, on
> several occasions, when features needed to be in by.
This release cycle had an additional source of confusion because what used
t
Steve Dickson wrote:
> I my past, added things of this size in a beta release was actually
> common.. In alpha release you get the software married to the hardware
> (i.e. barely booting) and in beta release you added everything else...
Yes, but that "Alpha" doesn't exist anymore and what was call
Matej Cepl wrote:
> Case in question ... I am not allowed to fix bug https://
> bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=520998, which I have filed some time
> ago, watched that maintainer didn't do anything to it, finally after
> discussing it with OpenSSL maintainer I have decided that upgrading to
>
Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> One thing I think is unclear this cycle is the usage of the word "Beta".
> It's been said many times that beta is not really beta but actually
> final freeze. For instance: "If all goes as planned the Beta
> (previously known as "Final Development") Freeze" in the message
Jesse Keating wrote:
> We've tried to address unclear terminology this summer with the
> milestone adjustment proposal.
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Milestone_Adjustment_Proposal This tries
> to apply industry standard naming to our release process, and as such we
> had to rename some things.
Steve,
On Wed, 2009-09-30 at 08:36 -0400, Steve Dickson wrote:
> On 09/30/2009 07:22 AM, Howard Wilkinson wrote:
> > Steve,
> >
> > just for clarity what you are actually saying is that.
> > On Tue, 2009-09-29 at 22:45 -0400, Steve Dickson wrote:
> >> On 09/29/2009 09:42 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
>
On 09/30/2009 11:07 AM, Howard Wilkinson wrote:
With version 4 there is this concept of a pseudo root. Which meanings
one can define, through exports, what the root of an export
can be. Which is a good idea because you can define /export as
the root, and nothing above /export ca
On Sep 30, 2009, at 7:39, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Jesse Keating wrote:
We've tried to address unclear terminology this summer with the
milestone adjustment proposal.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Milestone_Adjustment_Proposal This
tries
to apply industry standard naming to our release proces
Jesse Keating wrote:
> People with cargo cult knowledge knew what they meant but not new
> contributers nor community users. The change was for the better as it
> more clearly defines the milestones.
So "clearly" that many feature owners are confused about what they mean?
And don't forget that de
On 09/30/2009 04:09 AM, Steve Dickson wrote:
I don't really understand this reason. When you get a mount fail, why
not try v3? It doesn't matter whether the kernel gives a different
kind of error or not.
The error that is returned is ENOENT which is fatal error because
it means the remote dir
After further review... by a number of people, its been decided
the /etc/nfsmount.conf file will be installed with the default
protocol version set to v3. This will stop the mount failures
with older Linux servers but make it very easy to make v4
the default version. A nice compromise, IMHO...
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 01:11:56PM -0400, Steve Dickson wrote:
> After further review... by a number of people, its been decided
> the /etc/nfsmount.conf file will be installed with the default
> protocol version set to v3. This will stop the mount failures
> with older Linux servers but make it v
On 09/30/2009 01:47 PM, Paul W. Frields wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 01:11:56PM -0400, Steve Dickson wrote:
>> After further review... by a number of people, its been decided
>> the /etc/nfsmount.conf file will be installed with the default
>> protocol version set to v3. This will stop the mo
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 01:52:07PM -0400, Steve Dickson wrote:
> On 09/30/2009 01:47 PM, Paul W. Frields wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 01:11:56PM -0400, Steve Dickson wrote:
> >> After further review... by a number of people, its been decided
> >> the /etc/nfsmount.conf file will be installed
Steve Dickson (ste...@redhat.com) said:
> Right or wrong.. I took "Final Feature Freeze" as the last chance
> of getting a feature into F12.. And I will be the first to admit I
> do not read all the rule and regulations of all the steps of a
> release... I look at dates.. When is the alpha and w
On 09/30/2009 03:18 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Steve Dickson (ste...@redhat.com) said:
>> Right or wrong.. I took "Final Feature Freeze" as the last chance
>> of getting a feature into F12.. And I will be the first to admit I
>> do not read all the rule and regulations of all the steps of a
>>
On Wed, 2009-09-30 at 19:00 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>
> So "clearly" that many feature owners are confused about what they mean?
A few feature owners missed the repeated messages. I'm sorry, it was
bound to happen. Change causes disruption, but often that disruption is
for the better good.
Jesse Keating wrote:
> This isn't a post-facto justification. The only "one-off" for F12 was
> the removal of the milestone previously known as alpha.
Making the renaming a one-time-only change as I'm proposing would be "post
facto".
> The rest of the milestone adjustment proposal came out of t
On Thu, Oct 01, 2009 at 03:37:42AM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>Jesse Keating wrote:
>> This isn't a post-facto justification. The only "one-off" for F12 was
>> the removal of the milestone previously known as alpha.
>
>Making the renaming a one-time-only change as I'm proposing would be "post
>fa
Josh Boyer wrote:
> http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2009-06-12/fedora-
> meeting.2009-06-12-17.01.html
Ah, there it is, I must have missed it when going through the summaries,
sorry. :-(
So I'll have to blame the previous FESCo for voting this through with
practically no feedbac
Steve Dickson, Wed, 30 Sep 2009 15:41:51 -0400:
> Maybe removing the "Final Development" part and replace it with
> something like "Beta Freeze (Bug Fixes ONLY)" might have helped.
Well my problem with the current state is that it is not "Bug Fixes
ONLY", we are getting to acks (Red Hat people k
On Thu, Oct 01, 2009 at 09:34:38AM +, Matej Cepl wrote:
>Steve Dickson, Wed, 30 Sep 2009 15:41:51 -0400:
>> Maybe removing the "Final Development" part and replace it with
>> something like "Beta Freeze (Bug Fixes ONLY)" might have helped.
>
>Well my problem with the current state is that it i
On 10/01/2009 05:34 AM, Matej Cepl wrote:
> Steve Dickson, Wed, 30 Sep 2009 15:41:51 -0400:
>> Maybe removing the "Final Development" part and replace it with
>> something like "Beta Freeze (Bug Fixes ONLY)" might have helped.
>
> Well my problem with the current state is that it is not "Bug Fi
Steve Dickson, Thu, 01 Oct 2009 07:56:09 -0400:
> I thought about this as well... what might be better than "Bug Fixes
> ONLY" is "CVS commits turned off" which is more accurate to what
> happens...
Well, RHEL commits (hopefully I am not leaking some NDA-covered
information ;)) have to have somet
On Oct 1, 2009, at 2:34, Matej Cepl wrote:
Steve Dickson, Wed, 30 Sep 2009 15:41:51 -0400:
Maybe removing the "Final Development" part and replace it with
something like "Beta Freeze (Bug Fixes ONLY)" might have helped.
Well my problem with the current state is that it is not "Bug Fixes
O
On Oct 1, 2009, at 2:28, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Josh Boyer wrote:
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2009-06-12/fedora-
meeting.2009-06-12-17.01.html
Ah, there it is, I must have missed it when going through the
summaries,
sorry. :-(
So I'll have to blame the previous FESCo f
Matej Cepl wrote:
> Well, RHEL commits (hopefully I am not leaking some NDA-covered
> information ;)) have to have something like "fixes #123435" in the commit
> message. We could do the same easily but requesting that updates in bodhi
> have to be just bugfixes.
I can make a "bug" out of almost e
Kevin Kofler said the following on 10/01/2009 02:28 AM Pacific Time:
So I'll have to blame the previous FESCo for voting this through with
practically no feedback, as they observed themselves before the vote:
17:14:04 has there been any feedback on lists or wiki?
17:14:15 * nirik just sees one
John Poelstra wrote:
> The current FESCo might also want to consider taking more of a
> leadership role in monitoring the release processes, tracking the
> schedule, and evaluating the quality of the release under development
> and our ability to release on time. As the group responsible for
> gui
On Fri, Oct 02, 2009 at 12:53:21AM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>John Poelstra wrote:
>> The current FESCo might also want to consider taking more of a
>> leadership role in monitoring the release processes, tracking the
>> schedule, and evaluating the quality of the release under development
>> and
On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 8:51 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
> How about starting now? Our last two meetings took about 20 min combined.
>
> We're through the Feature process mostly, and we're entering the part of the
> development cycle that people need help with, reminders for, planning, etc.
>
> I actua
Jesse Keating, Thu, 01 Oct 2009 07:39:16 -0700:
> We've stopped caring about anything outside of the critical path.
Thanks for clarifying it. At least I know now that I should give up on
maintaining Fedora packages because nobody cares about them. Will do next
week.
Matěj
--
fedora-devel-list
Dne Fri, 2 Oct 2009 06:08:16 + (UTC) Matej Cepl napsal(a):
> Jesse Keating, Thu, 01 Oct 2009 07:39:16 -0700:
> > We've stopped caring about anything outside of the critical path.
>
> Thanks for clarifying it. At least I know now that I should give up
> on maintaining Fedora packages because no
On Fri, 2 Oct 2009, Matej Cepl wrote:
Jesse Keating, Thu, 01 Oct 2009 07:39:16 -0700:
We've stopped caring about anything outside of the critical path.
Thanks for clarifying it. At least I know now that I should give up on
maintaining Fedora packages because nobody cares about them. Will do
On Thu, 01 Oct 2009 14:35:33 -0700
John Poelstra wrote:
...snip...
> The current FESCo might also want to consider taking more of a
> leadership role in monitoring the release processes, tracking the
> schedule, and evaluating the quality of the release under development
> and our ability to
Kevin Fenzi said the following on 10/02/2009 08:49 AM Pacific Time:
On Thu, 01 Oct 2009 14:35:33 -0700
John Poelstra wrote:
...snip...
The current FESCo might also want to consider taking more of a
leadership role in monitoring the release processes, tracking the
schedule, and evaluating the
On 10/03/2009 05:20 AM, John Poelstra wrote:
>
> Sounds great to me, but would other members go for it? :) Maybe this is
> along the lines of the "Features SIG" that someone suggested a ways back.
A important oddness of the feature process is that it is not actually
necessary for the feature to
On 10/02/2009 04:53 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> A important oddness of the feature process is that it is not actually
> necessary for the feature to be in the distribution. So you send a nag
> mail, feature owners ignores it, you "drop" the feature and the
> functionality is still there. So unless
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 19:00:12 +0200,
Kevin Kofler wrote:
>
> So really, I see no practical argument against switching back to the
> Alpha/Beta/Preview naming (and reintroducing the old Alpha – again, as
> useless as it was in practice, the psychological impact on developers
> shouldn't be
On Fri, 2 Oct 2009, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
On 10/02/2009 04:53 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
So do we need to fix this? I think recognizing that there's different
types of features and some of them can continue even if they are dropped
while others must be (wholly or partially) reverted if they
On 10/02/2009 09:19 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>
> - Wait until we have the list of approved features.
> - Divide them up amoung fesco and have a 'point contact' for each that
> is a fesco member.
Having a FESCo owner to every feature in addition to the feature owner
might help. Abrt was part of
(intentionally breaking the thread so this is not burried somewhere in
depths)
Michal Schmidt, Fri, 02 Oct 2009 10:15:30 +0200:
> You're misinterpreting Jesse's quote out of context.
I am misunderstanding them (in case your interpretation is more correct).
So that's just that rel-eng doesn't hav
On Fri, 2009-10-02 at 15:26 +, Matej Cepl wrote:
>
> I am misunderstanding them (in case your interpretation is more correct).
> So that's just that rel-eng doesn't have enough work to do (otherwise,
> why they do not control only critical path components?).
>
Releng and QA are very small
2009/10/2 Matej Cepl :
> pspp -- A program for statistical analysis of sampled data
I can take care of if.
> jbrout -- Photo manager, written in python/pygtk
> pyexiv2 -- Python binding to exiv2 (used by jbrout)
I'm using it, so I'll take care of it..
--
With best regards, Peter Lemenkov.
--
Jesse Keating redhat.com> writes:
> Releng and QA are very small groups. The Fedora package set is
> extremely large. Over 8K packages. The rate of change is far too grate
> to provide second guessing over every package.
That's why I am surprised you want to click through all those requests fo
Am Freitag, den 02.10.2009, 15:26 + schrieb Matej Cepl:
> I also wish to orphan these packages, and frankly I care about them much
> less, so if nobody steps up, I will probably just let them die.
>
> JSDoc -- Produces javadoc-style documentation from JavaScript sourcefiles
> nimbus -- Deskt
On Fri, Oct 02, 2009 at 17:37:18 +,
Matěj Cepl wrote:
> Jesse Keating redhat.com> writes:
> > Releng and QA are very small groups. The Fedora package set is
> > extremely large. Over 8K packages. The rate of change is far too grate
> > to provide second guessing over every package.
>
>
- "Bruno Wolff III" wrote:
> Bugs can include RFEs as well as actual brokeness. I don't think that
> really buys you anything. And a bad maintainer could just file an RFE for an
> upgrade and refer to that bug when they provide the upgrade.
Yes, of course, but I expect Fedora maintainers to b
On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 8:51 PM, Matej Cepl wrote:
> - "Bruno Wolff III" wrote:
>> Bugs can include RFEs as well as actual brokeness. I don't think that
>> really buys you anything. And a bad maintainer could just file an RFE for an
>> upgrade and refer to that bug when they provide the upgrad
On Fri, 2009-10-02 at 17:37 +, Matěj Cepl wrote:
> That's why I am surprised you want to click through all those requests for
> fixes
> in non-essential packages. Why not leave them open (or allow updates only when
> bug number is attached)?
Because we don't have the infrastructure to handle
Am Freitag, den 02.10.2009, 15:26 + schrieb Matej Cepl:
> syncevolution -- SyncML client for evolution
I would like to maintain this package then.
Regards,
Dominic
--
Dominic Hopf
http://dominichopf.de/
Key Fingerprint:
A7DF C4FC 07AE 4DDC 5CA0 BD93 AAB0 6019 CA7D 868D
signature.asc
De
On Fri, Oct 02, 2009 at 14:51:15 -0400,
Matej Cepl wrote:
> - "Bruno Wolff III" wrote:
> > Bugs can include RFEs as well as actual brokeness. I don't think that
> > really buys you anything. And a bad maintainer could just file an RFE for an
> > upgrade and refer to that bug when they provi
> syncevolution -- SyncML client for evolution
I'll take this one.
Peter
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Am Samstag, den 03.10.2009, 10:09 +0100 schrieb Peter Robinson:
> > syncevolution -- SyncML client for evolution
>
> I'll take this one.
>
> Peter
I've just commented on that package, but you're not yet maintaining it,
so I'll repeat what I've discussed with Matěj already:
1. There is some bug
2009/10/3 Christoph Höger :
> Am Samstag, den 03.10.2009, 10:09 +0100 schrieb Peter Robinson:
>> > syncevolution -- SyncML client for evolution
>>
>> I'll take this one.
>>
>> Peter
>
>
> I've just commented on that package, but you're not yet maintaining it,
> so I'll repeat what I've discussed wi
Christoph Wickert, Fri, 02 Oct 2009 19:58:58 +0200:
> I'm going to take over nimbus. I already reviewed it and you asked me
> for co-maintenance. Sorry I didn't find the time to look into the EPEL
> build error sooner, it's still on my todo list.
Ownership released. Concernig bug https://bugzilla.
Dominic Hopf, Sat, 03 Oct 2009 01:46:04 +0200:
>> syncevolution -- SyncML client for evolution
>
> I would like to maintain this package then.
Talk with Peter Robinson about comaintainership.
Matěj
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/li
On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 7:21 PM, Matej Cepl wrote:
> Dominic Hopf, Sat, 03 Oct 2009 01:46:04 +0200:
>>> syncevolution -- SyncML client for evolution
>>
>> I would like to maintain this package then.
>
> Talk with Peter Robinson about comaintainership.
I'll quite happily have someone to help co-mai
Christoph Höger, Sat, 03 Oct 2009 14:23:01 +0200:
> 2. The sync-ui binary (which I wanted to test the most ;)) is missing.
It is not missing in devel (now F-12) package. But it is still not
working correctly due to %{_libdir}/syncevolution packages.
Matěj
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedo
Peter Robinson, Sat, 03 Oct 2009 10:09:20 +0100:
>> syncevolution -- SyncML client for evolution
>
> I'll take this one.
Released in pkgdb. Thanks.
Matěj
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Am Samstag, den 03.10.2009, 19:42 +0100 schrieb Peter Robinson:
> On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 7:21 PM, Matej Cepl wrote:
> > Dominic Hopf, Sat, 03 Oct 2009 01:46:04 +0200:
> >>> syncevolution -- SyncML client for evolution
> >>
> >> I would like to maintain this package then.
> >
> > Talk with Peter Ro
Matej Cepl, Fri, 02 Oct 2009 15:26:09 +:
> However, for personal reasons I
> need to decrease my personal involvment in non-work related Fedora work.
I have still on my list:
* cycle -- Calendar program for women (any ladies would like to decrease
gender gap in Fedora packaging? Or would li
1 - 100 of 103 matches
Mail list logo
