On Fri, 2008-12-12 at 18:48 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> The maintainer is supposed to read them, but if he already mistakenly
> requested the push, he might not be able to cancel it in time. "Push to
> stable" is a bit of a "big red button" you have to be careful with pushing.
> There's no way rel-eng can notice all such comments, the manpower is simply
> not there. (It would also need to be coordinated so the proofreaders screen
> the updates right before Jesse Keating starts the push process. I don't
> think this is going to happen any time soon.)

A push to stable request can be revoked at any time before I come along
and start the push process.

--
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature!
identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Orion Poplawski <orion@cora.nwra.com> writes:

> Causes nfs statd to fail at bootup
> orion - 2008-11-25 16:24:51 (karma -1)
> Needs selinux changes. Fails to start with selinux
> enforcing.
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=472917
> steved - 2008-12-09 18:59:31 (karma 1)
> selinux-policy-targeted-3.3.1-115.fc9 is now available
> which does take care of the Selinux problem. Please up
> update and try again...

That's a completely unreadable formatting which renders bodhi nagmails
useless for me. Hence, don't wonder when they get ignored...



Enrico

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

On Fri, 2008-12-12 at 09:17 -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-12-12 at 10:47 -0600, Rex Dieter wrote:
> > Orion Poplawski wrote:
> >
> > > Another update issue that raises some questions -
> > >
> > > - Does anyone actually read the comments in bodhi before allowing the
> > > push request to proceed?
> >
> > It's all up to the individual pkg maintainer to "do the right thing, in
> > their best judgment". Same pretty much applies to all your questions
> > here.
> >
> > -- Rex
>
> It is also up to the pkg maintainer's sponsor to ensure that the people
> one has sponsored are doing the right thing.

Stop cheating, Keating ... this sponsorship model has stopped working
long time ago.


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

On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 09:25:19 -0700, Orion wrote:

> Another update issue that raises some questions -
>
> - Does anyone actually read the comments in bodhi before allowing the
> push request to proceed?

Interesting issue, but it's not the first time this has happened.

So, to sum up:

* Some package maintainers insist on receiving problem reports for updates
in bugzilla. In general, there's no guarantee, however, the bz ticket will
be seen early enough to prevent a bad test-update from being pushed to
stable. So, additional negative karma in bodhi seems to be the way to go.

* Some people suggest that one has to enter bz ticket numbers in bodhi
before becoming able to give negative karma. (I think that would be a
waste of time for lots of cases)

* Some package maintainers do notice negative karma in bodhi, but they
choose to ignore it in cases where they think an issue is not worse
enough. Even if it causes regression for some users, they mark an update
as stable, because they expect it to fix other issues.

* Communication problems between maintainers with regard to inter-package
dependencies. Maintainer "A" asks maintainer "B" about a needed update of
another package. "B" tells "A" which newer version is supposed to be
sufficient. "A" then proceeds in bodhi without making sure that the needed
update from "B" is released or that both updates will be pushed _at
once_. Unclear here: The change in bodhi which requires that both
maintainers have pkg cvs devel commit access for the relevant pkgs in
order to submit update requests for them. Else bodhi's group updates
would be the way to fix this and push rpcbind together with
selinux-policy-targeted in a single set.

> - Should update submitters be allowed to give positive karma to their
> updates? Seems like that they are too biased.

Agreed. Some spend positive karma on mass-updates without even having
installed their packages on all dists. For example, some broken deps
make it impossible to install a package with rpm/yum/... and require
the --nodeps option.

> - Is there any requirement that an update have positive karma before
> being pushed to stable?

No, not at all.

That's a fault IMO. Many more updates ought to rely on the automatic
pushing based on the minimum positive karma threshold. If package
maintainers (and sufficiently privileged staff) retained the power to push
an update despite its karma level, but only with a good rationale, the
act of sabotage would become impossible and less attractive. (read:
hostile users could not block an update from being pushed)

> As of now, rpcbind will fail to start on F-9 with selinux in enforcing
> mode (esp. important on servers!) until
> selinux-policy-targeted-3.3.1-115.fc9 is pushed to stable. Seems like
> we could have waited for that.

I've thought "group updates" are supposed to fix that. Those are updates
for multiple package at once. If one of the set/group of pkgs is bad and
leads to too much negative karma while in updates-testing, the entire set
of pkgs will be pulled.

> We really need to work on this updates system.

See Luke Macken's recent blog entry about some bodhi metrics. Several
available features would be helpful *if* they were used more, instead
of listening to fan-boys and early +1 voters (who even vote on pkgs
downloaded from koji).

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