#89: Improve tracking blocker review status
--+-
Reporter: jlaska | Owner: poelstra
Type: enhancement | Status: assigned
Priority: major| Milestone: Fedora 14
Component
#89: Improve tracking blocker review status
--+-
Reporter: jlaska | Owner: poelstra
Type: enhancement | Status: assigned
Priority: major| Milestone: Fedora 14
Component
On Mon, 2010-12-06 at 14:30 -0500, Jan Wildeboer wrote:
> A mantainer who doesn't care about the bugs in his package may be
> everything - but not a maintainer. It is that simple. Maintaining a package
> means caring, not doing sth once in a while.
again, out of the scope of the QA list. The pro
On Mon, 2010-12-06 at 19:46 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Mon, 06 Dec 2010 10:11:25 -0800, Adam wrote:
>
> > > Too many tickets, too many reminders. After six months, the reporter maybe
> > > doesn't even work on the same software anymore.
> >
> > 'I don't use this any more, so let's leave
On Mon, 2010-12-06 at 18:45 +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> On 12/06/2010 06:39 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > the maintainers do get mails. there's not a lot we can do about
> > maintainers who simply don't deal with their bugs.
>
> Yes we can.
>
> For example we can implement a policy t
On Mon, 2010-12-06 at 18:39 +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> Changing bug status to NEEDINFO from reporter should only be done when
> information contained within the bug is incomplete, and additional
> information from the original submitter is required to confirm the bug
> so could the
On Mon, 2010-12-06 at 16:50 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Mon, 06 Dec 2010 10:08:35 -0500, James wrote:
>
> > The alternative is silently
> > closing EOL'd bugs. I don't think silently closing bugs works well with
> > the principle of least surprise.
>
> The alternative is to communicate w
On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 13:44:02 -0500
James Laska wrote:
...snip...
> So there is a lag time for mirrors to receive updates. Does anyone
> know what that average time for mirrors to update is?
It varies.
I've been doing pushes every day for a while now, I start them in the
morning and they usua
On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 12:40:25 -0500
James Laska wrote:
...snip...
> > * setup a remote test env that people could use to test things.
>
> I could use more details on this point. Is this talking about setting
> up QA systems hosted in Fedora infrastructure that any tester could
> login and use t
389-ds-base-1.2.7.2 is now in Testing. This release has some key fixes
for bugs in 1.2.7 and 1.2.7.1. Please help us test. The sooner we can
get this release tested, the sooner we can push it to Stable and make it
generally available. There is also a new 389-admin-1.1.13 package.
Installatio
On 09:46:18 pm Monday, December 06, 2010 Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
> On 12/06/2010 06:11 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > They don't have to. If you filed a bug that you can't follow up on any
> > more, in the general case, you can just say so, and close it. In this
> > case, you don't have to lif
The following Fedora 13 Security updates need testing:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/openttd-1.0.5-1.fc13
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/bind-9.7.2-1.P3.fc13,bind-dyndb-ldap-0.1.0-0.10.a1.20091210git.fc13,dnsperf-1.0.1.0-19.fc13
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updat
A mantainer who doesn't care about the bugs in his package may be
everything - but not a maintainer. It is that simple. Maintaining a package
means caring, not doing sth once in a while.
Jan
--
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailm
On Mon, 06 Dec 2010 10:11:25 -0800, Adam wrote:
> > Too many tickets, too many reminders. After six months, the reporter maybe
> > doesn't even work on the same software anymore.
>
> 'I don't use this any more, so let's leave it closed'. Takes three
> seconds.
It takes even less time to delete t
On 12/06/2010 06:39 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> the maintainers do get mails. there's not a lot we can do about
> maintainers who simply don't deal with their bugs.
Yes we can.
For example we can implement a policy that strip their packaging rights
and orphan the package, if no one claims the p
On 12/06/2010 06:11 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> They don't have to. If you filed a bug that you can't follow up on any
> more, in the general case, you can just say so, and close it. In this
> case, you don't have to lift a finger, because the bug will get
> automatically closed soon anyway. That'
On Sun, 2010-12-05 at 12:18 +0200, cornel panceac wrote:
> however, warning the reporter that the bug is closed is a good thing,
> imho. but i also believe that, when the maintainer didn't ever
> commented the bug report, he should receive a mail too, and this, as
> michael schwendt suggested, sho
there must be someone out there using sendmail on f13; if so, could you
please karma up
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/sendmail-8.14.4-6.fc13 . it's
been languishing in -testing for nearly a month now...thanks!
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwi
On Sun, 2010-12-05 at 01:30 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Sun, 05 Dec 2010 10:06:03 +1000, Brendan wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On 12/04/2010 02:15 PM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> > > Where do reporters opt out from this process?
> >
> > Is it really so bad? This gentle reminder simply gives
As always, minutes and IRC log available at
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/Meetings/20101206
= Attendees =
People present (lines said)
* jlaska (153)
* adamw (58)
* kparal (26)
* pjones (23)
* nirik (13)
* mdomsch2 (9)
* mkrizek (6)
* fenrus02
On 12/06/2010 03:50 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> The earlier automated (!) NEEDINFO request could also be used to point at
> a bug reporting HOWTO once more. And to repeat the request for a comment
> on the reproducibility and how to reproduce a problem.
Probably better to point the reporter to t
On Mon, 06 Dec 2010 10:08:35 -0500, James wrote:
> The alternative is silently
> closing EOL'd bugs. I don't think silently closing bugs works well with
> the principle of least surprise.
The alternative is to communicate with the reporter much earlier.
1) When there is a stable update of the pa
# Fedora Quality Assurance Meeting
# Date: 2010-12-06
# Time: 16:00 UTC (11:00 EST, 17:00 CET) [1]
# Location: #fedora-meeting on irc.freenode.net
Greetings all,
I don't have an abundance of discussion topics for today, so we'll keep
it short and sweet and check-in on the usual suspects. As alwa
"Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> Ye must realize that maintainers will shit all over reporters claiming
> that they do not respond reports and what not by doing what the
> bugzapper script or abrt is doing.
If you're not willing to look over bug reports for /your/ bugs that are
fixing to be CLOSE
On Mon, 2010-12-06 at 13:56 +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> On 12/06/2010 01:16 PM, James Laska wrote:
> > On Sun, 2010-12-05 at 00:42 +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> >> On 12/05/2010 12:06 AM, Brendan Jones wrote:
> >>> Is it really so bad?
> >> Yes and reporters should be able to
On 12/06/2010 01:16 PM, James Laska wrote:
> On Sun, 2010-12-05 at 00:42 +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
>> On 12/05/2010 12:06 AM, Brendan Jones wrote:
>>> Is it really so bad?
>> Yes and reporters should be able to opt out from this process chooses
>> they do so.
> They can. Turn off email
#154: Tracker: critical path test case creation
--+-
Reporter: adamwill | Owner: adamwill
Type: enhancement | Status: new
Priority: major| Milestone: Fedora 15
Component: Wiki
On Sun, 2010-12-05 at 00:42 +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> On 12/05/2010 12:06 AM, Brendan Jones wrote:
> > Is it really so bad?
>
> Yes and reporters should be able to opt out from this process chooses
> they do so.
They can. Turn off email notification for your bugzilla account, or
d
Compose started at Mon Dec 6 08:15:05 UTC 2010
Broken deps for x86_64
--
balsa-2.4.9-1.fc15.x86_64 requires libesmtp.so.5()(64bit)
beagle-0.3.9-19.fc14.x86_64 requires libmono.so.0()(64bit)
beagle-0.3.9-19.fc14.x86_64
29 matches
Mail list logo
