Change Request: git-1.7.2.1-2
I'd like to use this build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2376842 on pkgs01 via the infrastructure repo to fix this problem: http://bugzilla.redhat.com/620805 Can I get 2+1's (to sign it, add it to the repo and update it on pkgs01). It should be easy to revert if something goes wrong though I talked with tmz (a git maintainer) and he said it should be a pretty safe upgrade. -Mike _______________________________________________ infrastructure mailing list infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure |
Change Request: git-1.7.2.1-2
+1
-- Matt Domsch Technology Strategist Dell | Office of the CTO -----Original Message----- From: infrastructure-bounces@lists.fedoraproject.org [mailto:infrastructure-bounces@lists.fedoraproject.org] On Behalf Of Mike McGrath Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2010 9:49 AM To: Infrastructure Subject: Change Request: git-1.7.2.1-2 I'd like to use this build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2376842 on pkgs01 via the infrastructure repo to fix this problem: http://bugzilla.redhat.com/620805 Can I get 2+1's (to sign it, add it to the repo and update it on pkgs01). It should be easy to revert if something goes wrong though I talked with tmz (a git maintainer) and he said it should be a pretty safe upgrade. -Mike _______________________________________________ infrastructure mailing list infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure _______________________________________________ infrastructure mailing list infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure |
Change Request: git-1.7.2.1-2
On Tue, 2010-08-03 at 09:49 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
> I'd like to use this build: > > http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2376842 > > on pkgs01 via the infrastructure repo to fix this problem: > > http://bugzilla.redhat.com/620805 > > Can I get 2+1's (to sign it, add it to the repo and update it on pkgs01). > It should be easy to revert if something goes wrong though I talked with > tmz (a git maintainer) and he said it should be a pretty safe upgrade. > > +1 -sv _______________________________________________ infrastructure mailing list infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure |
Change Request: git-1.7.2.1-2
On Tuesday, August 03, 2010 09:49:22 am Mike McGrath wrote:
> I'd like to use this build: > > http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2376842 > > on pkgs01 via the infrastructure repo to fix this problem: > > http://bugzilla.redhat.com/620805 > > Can I get 2+1's (to sign it, add it to the repo and update it on pkgs01). > It should be easy to revert if something goes wrong though I talked with > tmz (a git maintainer) and he said it should be a pretty safe upgrade. +1 Ill get it signed and pushed now Dennis _______________________________________________ infrastructure mailing list infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure |
Change Request: git-1.7.2.1-2
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1 On 08/03/2010 07:49 AM, Mike McGrath wrote: > I'd like to use this build: > > http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2376842 > > on pkgs01 via the infrastructure repo to fix this problem: > > http://bugzilla.redhat.com/620805 > > Can I get 2+1's (to sign it, add it to the repo and update it on pkgs01). > It should be easy to revert if something goes wrong though I talked with > tmz (a git maintainer) and he said it should be a pretty safe upgrade. > > While I'm not opposed to this upgrade, I wonder if I missed something. When I became aware of this bug, it only seemed to effect client side installs, that is users who had the bad build could not clone from pkgs01. But users who had a good build could, without any change to the infrastructure on pkgs01. Is there a use case failure I'm missing? - -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- Freedomē is a feature! identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAkxcWokACgkQ4v2HLvE71NXPQACgj5nPmdEktp fwvolI07RAMrAo z1MAoI8odu9qH6tK1QVO7Wz/xL4fEZIG =A+y9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ infrastructure mailing list infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure |
Change Request: git-1.7.2.1-2
On Fri, 6 Aug 2010, Jesse Keating wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 08/03/2010 07:49 AM, Mike McGrath wrote: > > I'd like to use this build: > > > > http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2376842 > > > > on pkgs01 via the infrastructure repo to fix this problem: > > > > http://bugzilla.redhat.com/620805 > > > > Can I get 2+1's (to sign it, add it to the repo and update it on pkgs01). > > It should be easy to revert if something goes wrong though I talked with > > tmz (a git maintainer) and he said it should be a pretty safe upgrade. > > > > > > While I'm not opposed to this upgrade, I wonder if I missed something. > When I became aware of this bug, it only seemed to effect client side > installs, that is users who had the bad build could not clone from > pkgs01. But users who had a good build could, without any change to the > infrastructure on pkgs01. Is there a use case failure I'm missing? > I think you're right actually, tmz and I discussed on #fedora-admin and realized after we upgraded it that it didn't much make a difference on the server. -Mike _______________________________________________ infrastructure mailing list infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 03:11 PM. |
VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.