On Wed, 2011-07-13 at 20:58 +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 07/13/2011 08:11 PM, James Laska wrote:
Quite a bit smaller than the 100+ bugs on the list. Was that decision
from a recent FESCO meeting?
It's the one held on 15 June.
See this thread on -devel [1] also note that FESCO
On Wed, 2011-07-13 at 18:36 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Wed, 2011-07-13 at 19:25 +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 07/13/2011 07:17 PM, James Laska wrote:
Your ideas are consistent with how we've handled this before, I don't
think I could have articulated nearly as well though:)
On 07/14/2011 11:16 AM, James Laska wrote:
On Wed, 2011-07-13 at 20:58 +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 07/13/2011 08:11 PM, James Laska wrote:
Quite a bit smaller than the 100+ bugs on the list. Was that decision
from a recent FESCO meeting?
It's the one held on 15 June.
See this
On 07/14/2011 11:28 AM, James Laska wrote:
Long story short, I agree it makes sense to keep this separate from the
blocker process.
Agreed as well
The sysv to systemd feature is a special case and should not be mixed
into the standard QA workflow.
The QA community should be aware of how
On Thu, 2011-07-14 at 11:31 +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 07/14/2011 11:16 AM, James Laska wrote:
On Wed, 2011-07-13 at 20:58 +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 07/13/2011 08:11 PM, James Laska wrote:
Quite a bit smaller than the 100+ bugs on the list. Was that decision
from
On 07/14/2011 12:11 PM, James Laska wrote:
To make sure I'm understanding, do you mean the next goal would be to
determine the status of the SysV-systemd feature and whether it will be
on track for a Beta TC1 target? If it isn't ... FESCO must decide
whether to hold the release, or drop the
On 07/13/2011 07:17 PM, James Laska wrote:
Your ideas are consistent with how we've handled this before, I don't
think I could have articulated nearly as well though:) My
understanding is that FESCO is the right place to discuss whether a
feature should block a release or not.
They already
On Wed, 2011-07-13 at 19:25 +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 07/13/2011 07:17 PM, James Laska wrote:
Your ideas are consistent with how we've handled this before, I don't
think I could have articulated nearly as well though:) My
understanding is that FESCO is the right place to
On 07/13/2011 08:11 PM, James Laska wrote:
Quite a bit smaller than the 100+ bugs on the list. Was that decision
from a recent FESCO meeting?
It's the one held on 15 June.
See this thread on -devel [1] also note that FESCO accepted the feature
[2] on the bases that native systemd unit files
On Wed, 2011-07-13 at 19:25 +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 07/13/2011 07:17 PM, James Laska wrote:
Your ideas are consistent with how we've handled this before, I don't
think I could have articulated nearly as well though:) My
understanding is that FESCO is the right place to
10 matches
Mail list logo
