FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Redhat > Fedora Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 11-26-2008, 02:04 PM
Patrice Dumas
 
Default shortening time passed in bodhi?

Hello,

Most of the time I push to stable when reminded by a mail (nice feature)
since nobody cares to give feedback on my updates and they are not
urgent. However recently I had an update I wanted to have in as soon as
possible since the app was broken without it. It took 8 days to have it
pushed, something like 2-3 days for the push to testing and the remaining
for the push and signing.

Could this be improved?

I guess that the signing server should help, but I don't think it could
remove all the delays.

What are the reasons for holding updates? Is there somebody actually
verifying that the package works, doesn't break the distro or the like?
What exactly do releng/QA people with updates, ie what checks?

Reason I can think of justifying holding the release would be issues that
can affect distro as a whole. Some of those issues should be
tracked automatically:
* nevr issue (leading to upgrade issues)
* missing dependencies (as BuildRequires or Requires) be it as a removed
require that is needed by a package, or a new provide that is not
provided by any package
* providing redundant Provides leading to the wrong package being used
as provide

Are those issues actually checked today? Are there other issues that
releng/QA test/check?

--
Pat

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 11-26-2008, 02:12 PM
Kevin Kofler
 
Default shortening time passed in bodhi?

Patrice Dumas wrote:
> Most of the time I push to stable when reminded by a mail (nice feature)
> since nobody cares to give feedback on my updates and they are not
> urgent. However recently I had an update I wanted to have in as soon as
> possible since the app was broken without it. It took 8 days to have it
> pushed, something like 2-3 days for the push to testing and the remaining
> for the push and signing.

If you want it out as soon as possible, skip testing and push directly to
stable.

Kevin Kofler

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 11-26-2008, 02:22 PM
Patrice Dumas
 
Default shortening time passed in bodhi?

On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 04:12:06PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Patrice Dumas wrote:
> > Most of the time I push to stable when reminded by a mail (nice feature)
> > since nobody cares to give feedback on my updates and they are not
> > urgent. However recently I had an update I wanted to have in as soon as
> > possible since the app was broken without it. It took 8 days to have it
> > pushed, something like 2-3 days for the push to testing and the remaining
> > for the push and signing.
>
> If you want it out as soon as possible, skip testing and push directly to
> stable.

I didn't noticed that. In that case it goes straight to stable, without
neing in a pending state at all?

--
Pat

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 11-26-2008, 02:25 PM
"Richard W.M. Jones"
 
Default shortening time passed in bodhi?

On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 04:22:34PM +0100, Patrice Dumas wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 04:12:06PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > Patrice Dumas wrote:
> > > Most of the time I push to stable when reminded by a mail (nice feature)
> > > since nobody cares to give feedback on my updates and they are not
> > > urgent. However recently I had an update I wanted to have in as soon as
> > > possible since the app was broken without it. It took 8 days to have it
> > > pushed, something like 2-3 days for the push to testing and the remaining
> > > for the push and signing.
> >
> > If you want it out as soon as possible, skip testing and push directly to
> > stable.
>
> I didn't noticed that. In that case it goes straight to stable, without
> neing in a pending state at all?

Yes - I've used it a few times.

Rich.

--
Richard Jones, Emerging Technologies, Red Hat http://et.redhat.com/~rjones
virt-df lists disk usage of guests without needing to install any
software inside the virtual machine. Supports Linux and Windows.
http://et.redhat.com/~rjones/virt-df/

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 11-26-2008, 02:29 PM
Patrice Dumas
 
Default shortening time passed in bodhi?

On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 03:25:41PM +0000, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > I didn't noticed that. In that case it goes straight to stable, without
> > neing in a pending state at all?
>
> Yes - I've used it a few times.

Right, that removes one delay.

Still the delay for being in testing may be unwarranted, and other
delays certainly remain.

--
Pat

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 06:33 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org