The following Fedora 17 Security updates need testing:
Age URL
382
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-10269/revelation-0.4.14-1.fc17
194
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-0455/fedora-business-cards-1-0.1.beta1.fc17
122
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/up
The following Fedora 18 Security updates need testing:
Age URL
195
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-0416/fedora-business-cards-1-0.1.beta1.fc18
128
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-3935/puppet-3.1.1-1.fc18
122
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/
On Mon, 2013-07-22 at 15:47 -0400, DJ Delorie wrote:
> Aside from the people problems, perhaps bugzilla could be changed so
> that certain status paths preclude closing the bug?
>
> In my personal experience, I choose to not close *any* bug opened by a
> customer - it's up to them to decide if the
On Mon, 22 Jul 2013 15:26:43 -0400, Jonathan Kamens wrote:
> The maintainer in question has been active on bugzilla (as noted
> previously, he closed two other bugs of mine with INSUFFICIENT_DATA)
> /after/ I posted the reproduction steps, so it seems clear that were he
> planning on reopening
On 07/22/2013 03:47 PM, DJ Delorie wrote:
Perhaps in this case, any state that implies "waiting on reporter"
would stop anyone else from closing the bug, but let the system time
it out and auto-close it if the reporter ignores it?
This is exactly how /needinfo/, which we already have, is suppose
Aside from the people problems, perhaps bugzilla could be changed so
that certain status paths preclude closing the bug?
In my personal experience, I choose to not close *any* bug opened by a
customer - it's up to them to decide if the issue has been resolved to
their satisfaction. Instead, I pu
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 11:51 AM, Jonathan Kamens wrote:
> On 07/22/2013 12:44 PM, Jon Ciesla wrote:
>
> I'd suggest either the person's sponsor or
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Community_working_group
>
> How does one find out someone's sponsor?
>
> I looked at the Wiki page for the CWG, and
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 11:41 AM, Jonathan Kamens wrote:
> What can be done about a package maintainer with, for lack of a better
> term, an ongoing attitude problem?
>
> Here are some examples of interactions I've had with this individual. I am
> trying to be circumspect because I'm not trying
On 07/22/2013 03:21 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
Here it's mandatory to examine how long has been waited between posting
the steps and deciding that the ticket won't be reopened.
The maintainer in question has been active on bugzilla (as noted
previously, he closed two other bugs of mine with INS
What can be done about a package maintainer with, for lack of a better
term, an ongoing attitude problem?
Here are some examples of interactions I've had with this individual. I
am trying to be circumspect because I'm not trying to engage in public
shaming, but I really need some advice...
T
On Mon, 22 Jul 2013 15:08:06 -0400, Fernando Cassia wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 12:51 PM, Jonathan Kamens wrote:
> > I have little interest in wasting my time engaging in pointless "mediation"
> > that is just going to boil down to he-said, she-said,
>
> If mediation is not something you're
On 07/22/2013 03:05 PM, Fernando Cassia wrote:
It seems to me like you don't know how to report bugs. Bug reports
should include STEPS TO REPRODUCE, ALWAYS, it is not "OPTIONAL".
First of all, I have, in fact, included reproduction steps in all of the
bugs we're discussing here. I am dissatisfie
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 12:51 PM, Jonathan Kamens wrote:
> I have little interest in wasting my time engaging in pointless "mediation"
> that is just going to boil down to he-said, she-said,
If mediation is not something you're interested in, because your time
is too valuable (but apparently, the
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 12:41 PM, Jonathan Kamens wrote:
>
> The maintainer closed an abrt crash report about a package with
> INSUFFICIENT_DATA. He didn't actually ask the reporter of the issue for any
> additional information before closing it. I asked why in the bug, and he
> responded, "No ste
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 08:55:02PM +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> * https://bugzilla.redhat.com/986938
> * https://bugzilla.redhat.com/986935
This does seem like a horrible abuse of the "insufficient data" close
reason.
On the other hand, I guess it's slightly better than completely ignoring
On Mon, 22 Jul 2013 13:30:38 -0400, Jonathan Kamens wrote:
> Frankly, the particular package that I've been attempting to report bugs
> about (and, by the way, while this thread was ongoing, the maintainer
> closed yet another bug report of main with INSUFFICIENT_DATA without
> comment, despite
On 07/22/2013 12:58 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
Look them up in the account system.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/accounts/group/members/packager and
filter it or go through the list.
Thank you.
JK> I looked at the Wiki page for the CWG, and it doesn't have any
JK> enforcement powers.
Wh
> "JK" == Jonathan Kamens writes:
JK> How does one find out someone's sponsor?
Look them up in the account system.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/accounts/group/members/packager and
filter it or go through the list.
JK> I looked at the Wiki page for the CWG, and it doesn't have any
JK> enf
On 07/22/2013 12:44 PM, Jon Ciesla wrote:
I'd suggest either the person's sponsor or
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Community_working_group
How does one find out someone's sponsor?
I looked at the Wiki page for the CWG, and it doesn't have any
enforcement powers. "Specific anti-duties of the C
#393: Revise release criteria for ARM as primary arch
---+---
Reporter: adamwill | Owner: adamwill
Type: task | Status: new
Priority: major | Milestone: Fedora 20
Component: Release criteri
> Error: can't get boot images.
> The installation repo isn't available.
> You need to specify one with --instrepo.
Richard, if you could report a bug against fedup, that would be great. The
error message should be fixed (instead of telling you to use --instrepo, it
should tell you what the prob
21 matches
Mail list logo
