On Tue, 2007-08-07 at 16:08 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
>
> I'm not going to say no to this, but I am going to say that if this is
> a
> service we are serious about offering, it will take $$. Whereas the
> contributor only bridge can be made available now with our current
> resources.
>
Yeah
On Wed, 2007-08-01 at 11:53 -0400, seth vidal wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-08-01 at 11:42 -0400, Christopher Blizzard wrote:
> > On Wed, 2007-08-01 at 11:42 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote:
> > >
> > > Collaboration between more than 1 or 2 people on a patch set to
&
On Wed, 2007-08-01 at 11:42 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote:
>
> Collaboration between more than 1 or 2 people on a patch set to
> propose
> upstream.
Yeah, this is what I've been pushing for forever. "Private Builds".
The use case is something like project utopia. Where you have to make a
pile of
On Wed, 2007-06-27 at 07:54 -0400, Russell Harrison wrote:
>
>
> On 6/25/07, Christopher Blizzard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I actually think that we need to capture a small bit of that
> information. i.e. kernel, hal, pm-utils and whatnot. B
On Mon, 2007-06-25 at 17:41 -0400, Russell Harrison wrote:
>
> Doesn't knowing what's installed help determine what could be fighting
> with the hardware? Seems like there are two data points to capture.
> What's installed (seems like a good feature for smolt) and what's
> actually used (which mu
On Sun, 2007-06-24 at 22:12 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> Mike McGrath wrote:
> > Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> >>
> >> What do folks think of extending smolt into more of a system profiler
> >> including optionally collecting information on installed packages?
> >>
> >
> > I'm on the fence about this
On Wed, 2007-06-20 at 16:06 -0400, Michael DeHaan wrote:
>
> However it does rely on the accessibility of those upstream repos.
> Shouldn't be a major issue. If it's down, no updates.
Trust me when I say you don't want to do this. You always want to have a
local copy. For OLPC we have a jhb
On Wed, 2007-06-20 at 15:52 -0400, seth vidal wrote:
>
> Does that make any sense at all?
My specific proposal was mostly about translations which I don't think
have the same scaling problems you (rightfully) point out with source in
general.
I like a lot of what you had to say there. Instead
On Wed, 2007-06-20 at 11:22 -0700, Karsten Wade wrote:
>
>
> So, Infrastructure is much closer to developers, in that the pool of
> potentials are more likely to be clued. But keeping it this hard to
> contribute means we are missing out on the 1x more people who are
> not clued enough to ge
Before you guys descend into a discussion of specific SCMs can you talk
about what the goals are for what you want to do? Mike touched on them
but I think that it needs more discussion before you talk about what you
love/hate about specific tools.
--Chris
On Fri, 2007-06-15 at 18:29 +0200, Paulo Santos wrote:
>
> Something like:
> - "New survey is available"
> - you click in it, do the survey and send it with the profile, it
> would also be nice to have a checkbox to disable the announcements.
>
That's a good idea. I always worried about how to
On Fri, 2007-06-15 at 10:51 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
>
> It keeps trying as best as it can until network comes up. If all
> that
> fails (say a reboot is required before network comes up) the monthly
> smolt checkin will start up and we'll get them a month after they
> install. The monthly
On Fri, 2007-06-15 at 08:54 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
>
> The problem with the smolt numbers is that anyone doing kickstarts,
> installing via runlevel 3, yum upgrades or anaconda upgrades will
> never
> get prompted to enable smolt and there are privacy concerns just
> enabling it by default.
On Wed, 2007-06-06 at 17:31 -0400, Jeremy Katz wrote:
> At the same time, I think we still need to be able to very clearly
> separate out our changes from what upstream has. Just a git repo of the
> kernel very quickly gets out of control and you end up with bazillions
> of things that you never p
On Wed, 2007-06-06 at 16:53 -0400, Christopher Blizzard wrote:
>
>
> This might sound crazy (SUPPORT > 1 SYSTEM, ARE YOU CRAZY?) Well,
> yes,
> until you realize what you need to do here. To start with you only
> have
> to teach the rpm build side how pull a specific ta
On Wed, 2007-06-06 at 16:16 -0400, Jeremy Katz wrote:
>
> The problem with a staged approach like this two-fold
> 1) Moving off of CVS is going to end up requiring a fair bit of
> relearning/retraining for people. Even if we keep the workflow the
> same. So by having it as a two-step thing, peop
On Wed, 2007-06-06 at 10:31 -0400, Jeremy Katz wrote:
>
> Right. I really don't think we want to just take our current system,
> switch out CVS, and end up with all of the same workflows. The change
> should be more about how do we improve workflows. That means thinking
> about things like:
> *
On Wed, 2007-05-23 at 11:10 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
> Christopher Blizzard wrote:
> > On Wed, 2007-05-23 at 11:07 -0400, Voll, Toivo wrote:
> >
> >> Is there an explanation of the names somewhere? What they stand for, why
> >> they are being suggested, how t
On Wed, 2007-05-23 at 11:07 -0400, Voll, Toivo wrote:
> Is there an explanation of the names somewhere? What they stand for, why they
> are being suggested, how they compare to the previous names...
It's Nothing you have to worry about.
--Chris
>
> --
> Toivo Voll
> University of South Florida
On Sat, 2007-03-24 at 10:04 -0500, Matt Domsch wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 24, 2007 at 09:58:37AM -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
> > As for the mirrors, what are they obligated to take and what can they pick?
>
> They can pick and choose however they like fundamentally. They
> exclude by arch (e.g. ppc ofte
20 matches
Mail list logo
