Not at all, sir, alpha is way too late for f24 GA, about to be released just NOW! Also I'm not very pleased with me having to fix your FTBFS kodi package despite the appropriate backport was made available to you via github. I'm fine if you update kodi to devel and backport when stable, etc.

On 22/06/16 22:42, Michael Cronenworth wrote: > > > If this is how you are going to treat your contributors then I am > considering dropping my involvement in RPMFusion. You have never been > considerate of my help and continuously belittle me. I do not appreciate it. > You are certainly not alone in this. I presume that other contributors has come to the conclusion that their efforts is more appreciated somewhere else. At least, I have.

On 22/06/16 23:40, Nicolas Chauvet wrote: > > Can you please explain a little more your point of view ? and what did > you expect ? Basically, two things. The first is some decency - this does not include being called an idiot on the list by you.

The second is some transparency in how this repo is run. The docs still describes a steering committee and packages being approved by reviewers (and that's basically it). But in the end you overturn any decision you feel that you need to (and the committee doesn't exist).

Hi,  First alleluia ! the mail is back in business, so we can chat again. (I have about 176 message to read ! ) Please understand (Alec and Michael) the platform and new infra was raised with a lot effort of kwizart. One the most difficult things (for me) is deal with communication many people use RPMFusion but not many participate when things stopped everyone came and ask the same questions. I realize that is much more practical do an wiki page or a page in ask Fedora, that try reply to all people, so it is hard deal with all communications and communicate in general, specially if we do not know exactly what it will happen.  Another problem is we can't stop, every day we have new updates for something, but was made the decision of do a new infra, instead use the very obsolete one (the latest release of psp pages [1] was on 2001, for example) so we should be happy !  Michael sorry for not commit kodi-16.1 , I hadn't time , I also have much less free time than some months ago, but now you can commit again !  Anyway the things aren't even close to be finished, with pkgdb we could read the owners of the project [2], which give you ability for commit , but many other things in pkgdb aren't working ... , so please have a break on us (I can't find the correct translation) .  Thanks, [1] https://sourceforge.net/projects/psp/ [2] https://admin.rpmfusion.org/pkgdb/package/free/kodi/ On Qui, 2016-06-23 at 00:23 +0200, Alec Leamas wrote: > > > On 22/06/16 23:40, Nicolas Chauvet wrote: > > > > > > Can you please explain a little more your point of view ? and > > what > > did > > you expect ? > Basically, two things. The first is some decency -  this does not  > include being called an idiot on the list by you. > > The second is some transparency in how this repo is run. The docs > still  > describes a steering committee and packages being approved by > reviewers  > (and that's basically it). But in the end you overturn any decision > you  > feel that you need to (and the committee doesn't exist). > > Which is perfectly fine, it's your show. But ít should really be  > communicated so that contributors knows the rules. > > RPMfusion is an important repo, and I wish you luck. And hopefully > new  > contributors. > > > Cheers! > > -alec

Please read again what I've said, I have no issue to backport kodi 17 to stable (f24) at some point. There is nothing wrong against updating f24 kodi 16 to 17 18 or whatever. But having the repo and upgrade path broken for 23-->24 user migration is more a problem. This is a rel-eng concern.

Sure , but where would I know this info ? The patch that was made available to you on github has fixed the build.

That is not my indend.

So we agree!

Now do you really beleive I should untag koji-16 from koji for f24-free and build kodi-17 instead ?

On 06/22/2016 04:23 PM, Nicolas Chauvet wrote: > Please read again what I've said, I have no issue to backport kodi 17 > to stable (f24) at some point. > There is nothing wrong against updating f24 kodi 16 to 17 18 or > whatever. But having the repo and upgrade path broken for 23-->24 user > migration is more a problem. This is a rel-eng concern. > It should be the package maintainers discretion as to if a version is stable enough or not - not by only reading the words "alpha" or "beta" and saying "No, we cannot have this version in our repos." I have found that Kodi alpha/beta releases are stable enough to be consumed by everyone, but I will only issue an update after I have tested it myself.