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 12-11-2008, 04:41 PM
Christoph Wickert
 
Default Fedora QA ? - What Fedora makes sucking for me - or why I am NOT Fedora

Am Donnerstag, den 11.12.2008, 17:52 +0100 schrieb Ralf Corsepius:
> On Thu, 2008-12-11 at 17:08 +0100, Sven Lankes wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 11:58:51AM +0100, Matej Cepl wrote:
> >
> > >> We should try to get the bohdi-karma-mechanism more popular.
> >
> > > IMNSHO we should get rid of it -- there is already one very good
> > > mechanism for registering bugs in the software and it is
> > > bugzilla.
> >
> > Which can cater for negative feedback. I don't think most people would
> > be too happy with bz-entries created just containing 'works for me'.
> But this is exactly what is happening.
>
> Cf. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475943
> for a real world case.

Huh? This does not look like positive feedback to me but like a normal
bug report.

> ... no matter which karma a package would get, it would still be the
> maintainer who overrules.

+1. Let's get rid of karma automatism, at least no enabled by default.
>
> Ralf

Regards,
Christoph

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 12-11-2008, 04:56 PM
James Antill
 
Default Fedora QA ? - What Fedora makes sucking for me - or why I am NOT Fedora

On Thu, 2008-12-11 at 08:04 -0900, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 6:55 AM, Rex Dieter <rdieter@math.unl.edu> wrote:
> > Shrug, karma is optional. Many maintainers appreciate it (I do), if you
> > don't, then don't use it.
>
> Technically.... bugzilla is optional too. I'm doing a good job of ignoring it.
>
> And I think this line of argumentation is sort of moot. I think the
> problem is we aren't getting enough feedback into bodhi to know
> whether or not bodhi is competing with bugzilla.
>
> I don't think the problem is the design of bodhi "the webservice", I
> think the problem is we don't have a streamlined way to pull feedback
> from users in a timely manner to impact updates-testing.
>
> In aggregate how many karma votes do we get averaged for all current
> updates-testing packages in a given week?
>
> 1) We need bodhi integration into PK, so people who choose to use
> updates-testing get timely reminders and client side help in send in
> feedback for each and every update in testing they consume.

Yes! ... but good luck.

> 2) We need updates-testing enablement to be an in your face install
> time option, where we make the case to users to use updates-testing to
> help other users avoid problems

No, what you really want is your package manager integration so you can
say:

1. "You searched for FOO", there is version 1-1 in your Fedora release
version 1-2 has been in testing for X days and has Y karma, and version
2-1 is in "rawhide" but is installable with no / Z number of required
packages.

2. I noticed that FOO package just crashed, there is an update available
in testing which fixes these BugZillas:

12234666 - Random crashes when doing XYZ

etc.

...but, again, it doesn't fit into the design/philosophy of PK so it'll
be a huge amount of work.

--
James Antill <james@fedoraproject.org>
Fedora

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 12-11-2008, 08:50 PM
"Jeff Spaleta"
 
Default Fedora QA ? - What Fedora makes sucking for me - or why I am NOT Fedora

On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 8:56 AM, James Antill <james@fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> No, what you really want is your package manager integration so you can
> say:
>
> 1. "You searched for FOO", there is version 1-1 in your Fedora release
> version 1-2 has been in testing for X days and has Y karma, and version
> 2-1 is in "rawhide" but is installable with no / Z number of required
> packages.
>
> 2. I noticed that FOO package just crashed, there is an update available
> in testing which fixes these BugZillas:
>
> 12234666 - Random crashes when doing XYZ

I dont want it to say all that. In fact I'd be fine if there was
another dbus agent which testers could choose to install which
provided detailed information like that which listened to PK messages
on the bus.

For right now, I just want a nag reminder that I have packages from
testing installed that could use some karma love. Because from my own
experience that is what I feel I need to push feedback back into
bodhi.

-jef

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 12-12-2008, 01:36 PM
Kevin Kofler
 
Default Fedora QA ? - What Fedora makes sucking for me - or why I am NOT Fedora

Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> I don't want to get rid of "testing", I want to get rid of the hidden
> "package has been built but maintainer hasn't gotten around to push a
> package to testing" package queue and the interactions with it.
>
> It's the interactive step maintainers are required to perform in bodhi
> to push a package to testing, which adding to this bureaucratic bloat
> maintainers in Fedora are confronted with.

This "bureaucracy" is needed so you can tell *why* you're pushing the
update. At the very least "upstream bugfix release, changelog here: [url]".
But often you want to give a more precise reason, also referencing Bugzilla
IDs.

Now some maintainers don't do this, but that's their fault, not Bodhi's.

Kevin Kofler

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 12-12-2008, 06:10 PM
Robert Scheck
 
Default Fedora QA ? - What Fedora makes sucking for me - or why I am NOT Fedora

Hello Kevin,

On Thu, 11 Dec 2008, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Proprietary drivers are not, have never been and will never be supported in
> Fedora.

known to me. But another example for things working on and with prerelease
of Fedora 10 and which are broken afterwards. So Rawhide was a more better
choice rather Fedora 10 as "stable" release - not very well.


Greetings,
Robert

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 12-12-2008, 06:19 PM
James Antill
 
Default Fedora QA ? - What Fedora makes sucking for me - or why I am NOT Fedora

On Fri, 2008-12-12 at 05:20 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-12-11 at 18:41 +0100, Christoph Wickert wrote:
> > Am Donnerstag, den 11.12.2008, 17:52 +0100 schrieb Ralf Corsepius:
> > > On Thu, 2008-12-11 at 17:08 +0100, Sven Lankes wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 11:58:51AM +0100, Matej Cepl wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >> We should try to get the bohdi-karma-mechanism more popular.
> > > >
> > > > > IMNSHO we should get rid of it -- there is already one very good
> > > > > mechanism for registering bugs in the software and it is
> > > > > bugzilla.
> > > >
> > > > Which can cater for negative feedback. I don't think most people would
> > > > be too happy with bz-entries created just containing 'works for me'.
> > > But this is exactly what is happening.
> > >
> > > Cf. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475943
> > > for a real world case.
> >
> > Huh? This does not look like positive feedback to me but like a normal
> > bug report.
>
> Note the "works for me"s: It's the normal way users who report bugs
> through bugzilla provide feedback on proposed fixes.

So you suggest that automated tools trawl all the BZ comments looking
for "works for me" comments? ... and what do people do who are just
testing the new package but had no problem with the old one, pick a BZ
at random? Open a new "the old one worked for me BZ" which we add to the
update just so people can say the new one works.
And this is _better_ than the simple karma system?

--
James Antill <james@fedoraproject.org>
Fedora

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 12-12-2008, 09:44 PM
Bill Nottingham
 
Default Fedora QA ? - What Fedora makes sucking for me - or why I am NOT Fedora

James Antill (james@fedoraproject.org) said:
> And this is _better_ than the simple karma system?

Moreover, it's good to have 'works for me' comments that imply the
build works in general, and has no regressions. Those aren't necessarily
going to be tied to a particular bugzilla that the update fixes, nor
are they necessarily useful to have in the comments field of such
a bugzilla.

Bill

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 12-13-2008, 12:24 PM
Robert Scheck
 
Default Fedora QA ? - What Fedora makes sucking for me - or why I am NOT Fedora

Hello Matej,

On Wed, 10 Dec 2008, Matej Cepl wrote:
> Yes, there should be some mechanism how Bodhi should stop package
> from entering updates, but I guess bodhi developers will have to
> work a little bit harder than putting yet another stupid form on
> the website somewhere, which doesn't integrate with anything than
> with itself.

Bodhi is nice, yes. But people are not using it that much. Even packages
with a broader usage width are getting less to no karma points. And there
is no reflection into Bugzilla if something not works. Because if something
not works, that is likely a bug - why are such things only kept in Bodhi
but not noted as bug report?

Anyway, bodhi only refers to updates-testing. Can't we unpull packages from
updates fast once the karma gets negative? I'm still not happy, that there
was such a slow reaction for the dbus/PackageKit breakage...the interaction
from bodhi to the results on the mirrors seems to be currently ~ 48 hours
when looking to my last phpMyAdmin security update (or is therefore just
our scheme of how to handle security updates responsible?). The package for
EPEL of phpMyAdmin made it into the mirrors much faster as on Fedora.


Greetings,
Robert

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 12-13-2008, 01:13 PM
Chuck Anderson
 
Default Fedora QA ? - What Fedora makes sucking for me - or why I am NOT Fedora

On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 02:24:18PM +0100, Robert Scheck wrote:
> Hello Matej,
>
> On Wed, 10 Dec 2008, Matej Cepl wrote:
> > Yes, there should be some mechanism how Bodhi should stop package
> > from entering updates, but I guess bodhi developers will have to
> > work a little bit harder than putting yet another stupid form on
> > the website somewhere, which doesn't integrate with anything than
> > with itself.
>
> Bodhi is nice, yes. But people are not using it that much. Even packages
> with a broader usage width are getting less to no karma points. And there
> is no reflection into Bugzilla if something not works. Because if something
> not works, that is likely a bug - why are such things only kept in Bodhi
> but not noted as bug report?

Given that Bodhi updates bugzilla reports when updates are pushed,
maybe it can be made to update them with karma and comments too?

> Anyway, bodhi only refers to updates-testing. Can't we unpull packages from
> updates fast once the karma gets negative? I'm still not happy, that there
> was such a slow reaction for the dbus/PackageKit breakage...the interaction
> from bodhi to the results on the mirrors seems to be currently ~ 48 hours
> when looking to my last phpMyAdmin security update (or is therefore just
> our scheme of how to handle security updates responsible?). The package for
> EPEL of phpMyAdmin made it into the mirrors much faster as on Fedora.

If there were PK integration, there could be lots of interesting ways
to allow the user to interact with the update system, such as
single-click karma reporting back to bodhi, displaying the karma on
updates to the user so they can choose whether to update that package
or not, setting a preference that says somthing like "wait until karma
gets to +3 before defaulting the checkbox to enabled to update this
package".

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 12-13-2008, 01:33 PM
Robert Scheck
 
Default Fedora QA ? - What Fedora makes sucking for me - or why I am NOT Fedora

Hello Chuck,

On Sat, 13 Dec 2008, Chuck Anderson wrote:
> Given that Bodhi updates bugzilla reports when updates are pushed,
> maybe it can be made to update them with karma and comments too?

could be an interesting beginning, yes.

> If there were PK integration, there could be lots of interesting ways
> to allow the user to interact with the update system, such as
> single-click karma reporting back to bodhi, displaying the karma on
> updates to the user so they can choose whether to update that package
> or not, setting a preference that says somthing like "wait until karma
> gets to +3 before defaulting the checkbox to enabled to update this
> package".

The reporting should be always possible, as it maybe turns later out if an
update was broken or not. And how a about yum? If it's PackageKit-only it
is not really an advantage, given that unexperienced users won't rate such
updates anyway usually (at least from my point of view).


Greetings,
Robert

--
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 02:57 PM.

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