I got the following mail from Fedora updates. It says "The following
package has been moved to stable from testing". The Karma value
corresponding to this package is still zero (mentioned in the below
thread). Correct me if i am wrong, if the value reaches 3 its moved to
stable, thats how i understood it. I gave a comment for that package
that i am not able to test it because i was not aware what needs to be
tested for that enhancement.
Apart from this i ve an other problem. Suggestions and Comments
Welcome for this problem :) .
I browse through the Fedora Updates repository to start testing
packages which are under the fedora testing branch, but for some of
the packages, i see that its given as an enhancement (like the below
one) but i am not able to go ahead testing it because it does not
specifiy whats the enhnacement is about. I did notice that there are
some bug fixes too made which has got the word "bugfix" but does not
map to a Bug ID i.e, the Bug ID is not mentioned in the updates. It
becomes diffficult to test those packages and give appropriate and
correct feedback.I shouldnt give back a report saying that it works or
it does not work which might be a wrong test result because i might be
testing something but the fix would be for something else.
I would really appreciate if you all could help me with a suggestion
on this. I went a step ahead by raising a ticket in the bodhi system
so that we could have a field in the updates system where in when a
packager uploads the packages, a mandatory field on whats fixed if its
a bug fix could be stated and if its an enhanement , a small note on
what the enhancement is. Will this suggestion work ?
This would really help people testing packages from the bodhi
repository and thereby make Fedora a real rock solid distro.
Thanks for reading this . Hope people don't mistake me for this :)
On 5/29/08, updates(a)fedoraproject.org <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> The following comment has been added to the gedit-2.22.1-1.fc9 update:
> balajig8 - 2008-05-25 14:44:49 (karma: 0)
> It would be really helpful if you could let me know what the enhancement is so that i could test it and let you know the result. I would also really appreciate if the bugID( in this case the enhancement ID) could also be given so that i could test it specifically
> To reply to this comment, please visit the URL at the bottom of this mail
> Update ID: FEDORA-2008-3797
> Release: Fedora 9
> Status: stable
> Type: enhancement
> Karma: 0
> Submitter: hadess
> Submitted: 2008-04-30 10:57:01
> Comments: bodhi - 2008-05-29 02:43:33 (karma 0)
> This update has been pushed to stable
> bodhi - 2008-05-13 15:29:10 (karma 0)
> This update has been pushed to testing
> balajig8 - 2008-05-25 14:44:49 (karma 0)
> Hi It would be really helpful if you could let me
> know what the enhancement is so that i could test it
> and let you know the result. I would also really
> appreciate if the bugID( in this case the enhancement
> ID) could also be given so that i could test it
> specifically Cheers Balaji
On Fri, 30 May 2008 08:56:34 -0500
Matt Domsch <matt(a)domsch.com> wrote:
> > A little added twist here. I'd like to give the Fedora Board a chance
> > at culling the list a little bit before sending on to Legal. There were
> > a number of names that made it through the "is a" test and Legal that
> > might not have been the best ideas for naming a release. Add to that
> > the fact that Red Hat has used outside Legal to do the name clearance
> > the last few times and that is a measurable cost both in time and money.
> > The more names we ask to clear the more expensive and longer the delay
> > will be before we have a set to vote upon. So I am asking the Fedora
> > Board to review the list of names that Josh has collected and remove any
> > they deem not acceptable as a Fedora release name before handing it to
> > Legal.
> > (Note, I haven't yet directly talked to the board about this, so I'm
> > just assuming that they'll be on... board... with this.)
> Seems a very reasonable request. The Board doesn't want to limit
> people's brainstorming, but I can see value in culling the list that's
> sent out for trademark research.
OK. So the current list I have is at:
If I have missed one that follows the rules, please let me know and
I'll review it and add it. I'm taking further submissions until the
end of today, and then I'll send the list to the Board for culling.
After that, we'll send the revised list to legal.
Watching the FESCo meeting today a lot of things were not clear, but one
thing that stood out too me is that that we really don't have is a clear
picture or agreement on what the "Fedora Org" looks like and and how it
is supposed to work.
I'm sure some out there will think I'm getting to "corporate", however
I've often found that creating picture of things helps to simplify
things in ways that thousands of words can't.
Attached is starting template. Fill out the rest with your ideal
version of what it should all look like and I'd be glad to help refactor
into different proposals. If you won't want to mess with open office...
explain it in text and I'll draw it for you.
On Fri, 30 May 2008, Max Spevack wrote:
> On Fri, 30 May 2008, Josh Boyer wrote:
>> If I have missed one that follows the rules, please let me know and I'll
>> review it and add it.
> Sulphur is a "Linux distribution name".
> "Red Hat Linux 10" is a "Linux distribution name".
> Fedora 10 (Red Hat Linux 10)
> is my recommendation.
i am sure this has been discussed in the past, but google isn't help me
I am preparing an update for cman that requires an updated BR version of
openais has been updated and built on koji but not submitted to bodhi
since the packages needs to go in all at the same time to work properly.
The problem is very simple.. koji doesn't use the new openais version so
cman simply fails to build.
What is the right procedure/way to handle this situation?