Am Freitag, den 12.06.2009, 08:48 -0700 schrieb Toshio Kuratomi:
> On 06/12/2009 08:14 AM, Christoph Wickert wrote:
> > Am Freitag, den 12.06.2009, 05:34 +0200 schrieb Kevin Kofler:
>
> >> I don't see what it buys our users if they get one big update over 2 small
> >> ones.
> >
> > In most case
On Thu, 2009-06-11 at 20:54 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
> > What is the status of the automatic signing server? I think we really
>
> It exists. We aren't using it yet because of quite a few factors.
Not quite true. There exists code that allows people to be authorized
to sign content, without kno
On 06/12/2009 08:14 AM, Christoph Wickert wrote:
> Am Freitag, den 12.06.2009, 05:34 +0200 schrieb Kevin Kofler:
>> I don't see what it buys our users if they get one big update over 2 small
>> ones.
>
> In most cases the biggest part (consuming time and cpu cycles) of the
> updates is not insta
Christoph Wickert wrote:
> In most cases the biggest part (consuming time and cpu cycles) of the
> updates is not installing them but everything else like checking for new
> packages, downloading the metadata, calculating dependencies,
> downloading the packages and running the transaction test. Es
Am Freitag, den 12.06.2009, 05:34 +0200 schrieb Kevin Kofler:
> Christoph Wickert wrote:
> > IMO this is something we should discuss on this list. We need to find a
> > fine balance between pushing updates in time to make maintainers happy
> > and not too many updates for the users. Maybe something
On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 9:14 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Josh Boyer wrote:
>> No. It simply is not possible. See my (and Luke's) email on how long
>> a single push takes.
>
> Seth says the 22-hour run is a bug. If a run can be done in ~8 hours, that
> means an automated update procedure could do ab
Josh Boyer wrote:
> No. It simply is not possible. See my (and Luke's) email on how long
> a single push takes.
Seth says the 22-hour run is a bug. If a run can be done in ~8 hours, that
means an automated update procedure could do about 3 per day.
But of course, if it takes one day, then let's
On Fri, 12 Jun 2009, Luke Macken wrote:
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 08:54:19PM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 8:39 PM, Christoph
Wickert wrote:
need it because things need to be predictable for package maintainers.
Some updates are processed after a day, others not for two week
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 11:34 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Christoph Wickert wrote:
>> IMO this is something we should discuss on this list. We need to find a
>> fine balance between pushing updates in time to make maintainers happy
>> and not too many updates for the users. Maybe something like
>> se
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 08:54:19PM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 8:39 PM, Christoph
> Wickert wrote:
> > need it because things need to be predictable for package maintainers.
> > Some updates are processed after a day, others not for two weeks.
>
> I'm a bit confused where yo
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 01:37:08PM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
> I tried to do an updates push earlier this week and it hit some
> errors. That needs to be fixed and resumed. I won't be able to get
> to this until Sunday at the earliest. If Jesse or Luke want to fix
> that up, it might help.
I fix
Christoph Wickert wrote:
> IMO this is something we should discuss on this list. We need to find a
> fine balance between pushing updates in time to make maintainers happy
> and not too many updates for the users. Maybe something like
> security/urgent updates daily, everything else once or twice a
Am Donnerstag, den 11.06.2009, 20:54 -0400 schrieb Josh Boyer:
> On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 8:39 PM, Christoph
> Wickert wrote:
> >
> > Some updates are processed after a day, others not for two weeks.
>
> I'm a bit confused where your date is coming from. 2 weeks seems
> wrong lately. In fact, sin
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 8:39 PM, Christoph
Wickert wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, den 11.06.2009, 13:37 -0400 schrieb Josh Boyer:
>
>> Unfortunately, rawhide has been taking multiple days to spit out.
>> Combine that with the fact that the two people that do sign/push for
>> updates were both in a FAD thi
Am Donnerstag, den 11.06.2009, 13:37 -0400 schrieb Josh Boyer:
> Unfortunately, rawhide has been taking multiple days to spit out.
> Combine that with the fact that the two people that do sign/push for
> updates were both in a FAD this week and you get a bit less response
> time.
>
> I tried to d
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 12:20 AM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 07:44:24 +0530,
> Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>> On 06/11/2009 07:39 AM, Bojan Smojver wrote:
>> > Bojan Smojver rexursive.com> writes:
>> >
>> >> Maybe I missed something, but it seems that some updates that have been
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 07:44:24 +0530,
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 06/11/2009 07:39 AM, Bojan Smojver wrote:
> > Bojan Smojver rexursive.com> writes:
> >
> >> Maybe I missed something, but it seems that some updates that have been
> >> submitted for F-11 testing are still pending. Any ideas wh
Rahul Sundaram fedoraproject.org> writes:
> They are probably waiting on rel-eng to sign the packages. If you can be
> more specific, it would be easier to tell you what the status is.
viewvc-1.1.1.
Also, it would be good if various apr-util packages (from F-9 to F-11 could be
pushed to testing
On 06/11/2009 07:39 AM, Bojan Smojver wrote:
> Bojan Smojver rexursive.com> writes:
>
>> Maybe I missed something, but it seems that some updates that have been
>> submitted for F-11 testing are still pending. Any ideas why that is?
>
> I meant to say, submitted over a week ago.
They are probab
Bojan Smojver rexursive.com> writes:
> Maybe I missed something, but it seems that some updates that have been
> submitted for F-11 testing are still pending. Any ideas why that is?
I meant to say, submitted over a week ago.
--
Bojan
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redha
Maybe I missed something, but it seems that some updates that have been
submitted for F-11 testing are still pending. Any ideas why that is?
--
Bojan
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
21 matches
Mail list logo
