Compose started at Fri Aug 7 07:15:03 UTC 2015
Broken deps for armhfp
--
[apache-scout]
apache-scout-1.2.6-11.fc21.noarch requires mvn(org.apache.juddi:uddi-ws)
apache-scout-1.2.6-11.fc21.noarch requires
mvn(org.apache.juddi:
As promised at yesterday's Go/No-Go meeting, I'm starting a discussion
on the Alpha criterion that states: "The default desktop background
must be different from that of the two previous stable releases."
As I understand it, the intent is essentially that no one booting a
Fedora pre-release should
"Auto Freeze Exeception" seems too complicated an answer to this
question.
Either continue to call new background a blocker, or decide it is
desirable but not a blocking issue.
If lovely new art is not available, some generic "Fnn" background could
be used then replaced by an update after release
The following Fedora 21 Security updates need testing:
Age URL
188
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-1467/openstack-glance-2014.1.3-4.fc21
78
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-8168/cabal-install-1.16.1.0-1.fc21,haskell-platform-2013.2.0.0-39.fc21
68
The following Fedora 22 Security updates need testing:
Age URL
119
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-5878/echoping-6.1-0.beta.r434svn.1.fc22
68
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-9110/fossil-1.33-1.fc22
68
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDOR
There are pros and cons to a generic background to pass the blocker
status. The benefit of course is that it fulfills the need to be a
different background and thus detectable as not the latest/stable etc. The
cons is that quality of that generic background image may be less than it
currently is,
On Fri, 07 Aug 2015 08:30:44 -0400
Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> As promised at yesterday's Go/No-Go meeting, I'm starting a discussion
> on the Alpha criterion that states: "The default desktop background
> must be different from that of the two previous stable releases."
>
> As I understand it, t
On Fri, Aug 07, 2015 at 09:06:26AM -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Fri, 07 Aug 2015 08:30:44 -0400
> Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>
> > As promised at yesterday's Go/No-Go meeting, I'm starting a discussion
> > on the Alpha criterion that states: "The default desktop background
> > must be different f
On Fri, 2015-08-07 at 09:15 -0400, Richard Ryniker wrote:
> "Auto Freeze Exeception" seems too complicated an answer to this
> question.
>
> Either continue to call new background a blocker, or decide it is
> desirable but not a blocking issue.
>
That's fair. I was trying to offer an alternative
On Fri, Aug 07, 2015 at 08:30:44AM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> It's very likely to get into "last blocker" discussions (as it did
> yesterday). (By "last blocker" I mean those cases where the Go/No-Go
> would tend to waive it as a blocker if it was the only one holding up a
> release). To me,
On Fri, Aug 07, 2015 at 09:06:26AM -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> I don't even think the desktop background is all that visible anymore,
> especially on some desktops (like workstation/gnome). People there tend
> to use full screen apps and never even see the wallpaper.
FWIW, I use GNOME without full
On Thu, 6 Aug 2015 00:56:29 -0500 (CDT)
Michael Hennebry wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Jul 2015, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 29 Jul 2015 14:51:29 -0700
> > Samuel Sieb wrote:
>
> >> On 07/29/2015 02:10 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>
> >> How could I customize the password settings for installing from th
On Fri, 2015-08-07 at 09:15 -0400, Richard Ryniker wrote:
> "Auto Freeze Exeception" seems too complicated an answer to this
> question.
>
> Either continue to call new background a blocker, or decide it is
> desirable but not a blocking issue.
>
> If lovely new art is not available, some generic
On Fri, 2015-08-07 at 11:57 -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote:
> I think it would make sense for the Design team to be aware of this
> proposal too. I think the criterion has been used as a forcing
> function in the past, so if it's not going to trigger a notification
> they expect, we don't want desi
On Fri, 07 Aug 2015 10:03:34 -0700
Adam Williamson wrote:
> This is exactly what I *don't* want to happen, and what rather annoys
> me about this whole business.
>
> The blocker process is not a tool for the rest of the project to use
> as a reminder system. It doesn't work very well for that. T
On Fri, 2015-08-07 at 09:59 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Fri, 2015-08-07 at 09:15 -0400, Richard Ryniker wrote:
> > "Auto Freeze Exeception" seems too complicated an answer to this
> > question.
> >
> > Either continue to call new background a blocker, or decide it is
> > desirable but not a
On Fri, Aug 07, 2015 at 10:03:34AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> The blocker process is not a tool for the rest of the project to use as
> a reminder system. It doesn't work very well for that. The expectation
[...]
> * QA tests Thing and finds no-one ever even started working on it
> * QA files
On Fri, Aug 07, 2015 at 10:22:56AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> What I *can't* find is any reference for the justification usually
> cited for the criterion. Several times we mention that there was an
> actual case where people downloaded an Alpha or Beta then got confused
> because the backgrou
On Fri, 2015-08-07 at 13:42 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 07, 2015 at 10:22:56AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > What I *can't* find is any reference for the justification usually
> > cited for the criterion. Several times we mention that there was an
> > actual case where people dow
On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 11:11 AM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Fri, 07 Aug 2015 10:03:34 -0700
> Adam Williamson wrote:
>
>> This is exactly what I *don't* want to happen, and what rather annoys
>> me about this whole business.
>>
>> The blocker process is not a tool for the rest of the project to use
On Fri, Aug 07, 2015 at 02:03:31PM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> > Here's a thought: maybe the Fedora background logo GNOME Shell plugin
> > could detect if running on an Alpha/Beta release (or on Rawhide) and
> > change appropriately?
> Which is fine and dandy on a GNOME/Workstation system, bu
On Fri, 2015-08-07 at 13:42 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 07, 2015 at 10:22:56AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > What I *can't* find is any reference for the justification usually
> > cited for the criterion. Several times we mention that there was an
> > actual case where people dow
At the Fedora 23 Alpha Go/No-Go Meeting #2 that just occurred, it was
agreed to Go with the Fedora 23 Alpha by Fedora QA, Release Engineering
and Development.
Fedora 23 Alpha will be publicly available on Tuesday, August 11, 2015.
Meeting details can be seen here:
Minutes:
http://meetbot.fedorap
With the recent decision to ship Alpha, Flock being next week and people
traveling, I propose that we cancel the next Blocker Review meeting.
Currently there are 2/4 proposals for Beta/Final - so if someone wants
to run the meeting, go for it. Otherwise, enjoy your blocker review free
time :)
--
On Fri, Aug 07, 2015 at 11:59:51AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > Here's a thought: maybe the Fedora background logo GNOME Shell plugin
> > could detect if running on an Alpha/Beta release (or on Rawhide) and
> > change appropriately?
> That's certainly what I thought would help with the whole b
On 08/08/15 05:42, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Fri, Aug 07, 2015 at 10:22:56AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
What I *can't* find is any reference for the justification usually
cited for the criterion. Several times we mention that there was an
actual case where people downloaded an Alpha or Beta th
On 08/08/15 03:06, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
[...]
I don't even think the desktop background is all that visible anymore,
especially on some desktops (like workstation/gnome). People there
tend to use full screen apps and never even see the wallpaper. That
also seems like a pretty poor way to tell wha
In accordance with discussion at today's Go/No-Go meeting, I've changed
the release-blocking desktop for ARM from KDE to Xfce in
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Template:Release_criteria_preamble (whic
h is included in each of the Release Criteria pages). For those not at
the meeting and who don't
Greetings!
I am having a difficult time configuring the testing repositories in Fedora 22.
Would someone be willing to outline the proper way to do this?
Thanks!
Jonathan Calloway
--
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinf
On Fri, 2015-08-07 at 17:45 -0400, Jonathan Calloway wrote:
> Greetings!
>
> I am having a difficult time configuring the testing repositories in
> Fedora 22. Would someone be willing to outline the proper way to do
> this?
dnf config-manger --enablerepo updates-testing
should do it, I think.
That’s what I *thought* I was doing, but I kept getting sync errors.
In any case, thanks!!
> On Aug 7, 2015, at 5:46 PM, Adam Williamson
> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2015-08-07 at 17:45 -0400, Jonathan Calloway wrote:
>> Greetings!
>>
>> I am having a difficult time configuring the testing repos
On 08/08/15 05:46, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Fri, 2015-08-07 at 17:45 -0400, Jonathan Calloway wrote:
>> Greetings!
>>
>> I am having a difficult time configuring the testing repositories in
>> Fedora 22. Would someone be willing to outline the proper way to do
>> this?
> dnf config-manger --e
Hey, folks. Just thought I'd note that I changed the names of the
custom partitioning test cases a bit to be more consistent - they're
now all called something like Testcase:Partitioning_custom_(foo) ,
matching the Testcase:Partitioning_guided_(foo) for guided partitioning
tests. I made the (foo) p
On Sat, 2015-08-08 at 05:58 +0800, Ed Greshko wrote:
> On 08/08/15 05:46, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Fri, 2015-08-07 at 17:45 -0400, Jonathan Calloway wrote:
> > > Greetings!
> > >
> > > I am having a difficult time configuring the testing repositories
> > > in
> > > Fedora 22. Would someone
This seems to have worked. I’m not getting the caching errors anyway!
> On Aug 7, 2015, at 5:59 PM, Adam Williamson
> wrote:
>
> On Sat, 2015-08-08 at 05:58 +0800, Ed Greshko wrote:
>> On 08/08/15 05:46, Adam Williamson wrote:
>>> On Fri, 2015-08-07 at 17:45 -0400, Jonathan Calloway wrote
Adam,
Could you, or whoever is responsible, update the main Fedora QA updates page
with this info? It’s showing F22 Atomic. I was thinking when i was
referencing it that the information listed there was dated, so please correct
me if I’m wrong!
Thanks!
> On Aug 7, 2015, at 5:59 PM, Adam
The following Fedora 21 Security updates need testing:
Age URL
189
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-1467/openstack-glance-2014.1.3-4.fc21
79
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-8168/cabal-install-1.16.1.0-1.fc21,haskell-platform-2013.2.0.0-39.fc21
69
The following Fedora 22 Security updates need testing:
Age URL
120
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-5878/echoping-6.1-0.beta.r434svn.1.fc22
69
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-9110/fossil-1.33-1.fc22
69
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDOR
38 matches
Mail list logo
