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 02-18-2010, 04:23 PM
Jesse Keating
 
Default Fedora 13 has been branched!!

On Thu, 2010-02-18 at 18:22 +0100, Christoph Wickert wrote:
> If the ticket is assigned to a single person, I doubt we can do the
> overwrites in a timely manner. Remember, I'm wasn't talking about a
> single overwrite but about large build chains that require 8 or 9 rounds
> of builds and up to 15 overwrites. And if the requester is in a
> different timezone then the ticket assignee, it surely will take several
> days.
>

New tickets for each override, make tag-request helps here.


--
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- Freedom˛ is a feature!
identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 02-19-2010, 06:05 PM
Till Maas
 
Default Fedora 13 has been branched!!

On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 07:36:09AM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:

> We don't really have a coverage list, but most of the people who have
> been doing tagging are all in the US time zones, so anything outside of
> that is welcome.

Ok.

> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Buildroot_override_SOP is the working SOP
> we have for this, although I notice it doesn't say what to do with the
> tickets. We typically assign the ticket to ourself, whoever is doing
> the tag, so that when the reporter says the build is done we see it and
> can do the untag and close the ticket.

I updated it to mention the ticket handling.

I just wonder, is there no verification done one the request, e.g. is
everybody allowed to request a build override or is it restricted to
package (co)maintainers and provenpackagers?
I only found this regarding verification:

| Buildroot overrides usually means that something is soname bumping. Be
| sure this is a sane update to do in Fedora

How is this handled?

> https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/report/3 can help you somewhat see the
> open tickets, if there is a tag request ticket assigned to rel-eng@ that
> means it likely hasn't been operated on.

This query only reports tickets assigned to rel-eng@ in the component
koji, I guess it is more accurate or are there many tag requests that
are not in the koji component?
https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/query?status=new&status=assigned&status=reopened&c omponent=koji&owner=rel-eng%40lists.fedoraproject.org&order=priority

I added this to the SOP as well.

Regards
Till
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-03-2010, 01:34 AM
Ralf Corsepius
 
Default Fedora 13 has been branched!!

On 02/17/2010 03:16 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-02-17 at 05:45 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>> Am I correct in assuming, wcorresponding mock setups for and yum
>> mirrorlists reflecting this new setup will be in place in time when
>> these repos go on-line?
>>
>>
>
> yes. MirrorManager should already be working for these repos, I'll be
> working on a mock update today.

Where is the mock update?

It's been nearly 2 weeks since you've promissed to do so, but this
hasn't happened.

There still are no mock configurations providing setups for fedora-13
(/etc/mock/fedora-13-{i386,x86_64}.cfg)

Ralf



--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-03-2010, 03:17 AM
Jesse Keating
 
Default Fedora 13 has been branched!!

On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 03:34 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> Where is the mock update?
>
> It's been nearly 2 weeks since you've promissed to do so, but this
> hasn't happened.
>
> There still are no mock configurations providing setups for fedora-13
> (/etc/mock/fedora-13-{i386,x86_64}.cfg)

mock-1.0.5 was pushed into updates-testing a number of days ago that
includes the new 13 configs. They'll get moved over to the various
stables shortly.

--
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- Freedom˛ is a feature!
identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-03-2010, 03:33 AM
Ralf Corsepius
 
Default Fedora 13 has been branched!!

On 03/03/2010 05:17 AM, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 03:34 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>> Where is the mock update?
>>
>> It's been nearly 2 weeks since you've promissed to do so, but this
>> hasn't happened.
>>
>> There still are no mock configurations providing setups for fedora-13
>> (/etc/mock/fedora-13-{i386,x86_64}.cfg)
>
> mock-1.0.5 was pushed into updates-testing a number of days ago that
> includes the new 13 configs. They'll get moved over to the various
> stables shortly.

Too late, you failed to provide them in time.

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-03-2010, 03:54 AM
Kevin Kofler
 
Default Fedora 13 has been branched!!

Ralf Corsepius wrote:

> On 03/03/2010 05:17 AM, Jesse Keating wrote:
>> On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 03:34 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>>> Where is the mock update?
>>>
>>> It's been nearly 2 weeks since you've promissed to do so, but this
>>> hasn't happened.
>>>
>>> There still are no mock configurations providing setups for fedora-13
>>> (/etc/mock/fedora-13-{i386,x86_64}.cfg)
>>
>> mock-1.0.5 was pushed into updates-testing a number of days ago that
>> includes the new 13 configs. They'll get moved over to the various
>> stables shortly.
>
> Too late, you failed to provide them in time.

+1

Yet another perfect example of an update which should have been pushed
directly to stable.

Kevin Kofler

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-03-2010, 04:36 AM
Jeffrey Ollie
 
Default Fedora 13 has been branched!!

On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 10:54 PM, Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler@chello.at> wrote:
>
> Yet another perfect example of an update which should have been pushed
> directly to stable.

No, it's an example of an update that should have been pushed to
updates-testing sooner...

--
Jeff Ollie
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-03-2010, 04:47 AM
Ralf Corsepius
 
Default Fedora 13 has been branched!!

On 03/03/2010 05:54 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>
>> On 03/03/2010 05:17 AM, Jesse Keating wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 03:34 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>>>> Where is the mock update?
>>>>
>>>> It's been nearly 2 weeks since you've promissed to do so, but this
>>>> hasn't happened.
>>>>
>>>> There still are no mock configurations providing setups for fedora-13
>>>> (/etc/mock/fedora-13-{i386,x86_64}.cfg)
>>>
>>> mock-1.0.5 was pushed into updates-testing a number of days ago that
>>> includes the new 13 configs. They'll get moved over to the various
>>> stables shortly.
>>
>> Too late, you failed to provide them in time.
>
> +1
>
> Yet another perfect example of an update which should have been pushed
> directly to stable.
No, this package should have been in place ("in updates") at the same
time, the F-13 branch had been activated in Fedora's CVS.

This wasn't the case, and thus likely caused:

* maintainers wanting to "make mockbuild" F-13 package in CVS to hit
build failures (I did so) or to test-build against the wrong repository
(building against rawhide instead of F-13).

* maintainers having to waste their time on reimplementing local
versions of /etc/mock/fedora-13-<*>.cfgs (I did so).

* third parties (e.g. rpmfusion) building packages against the wrong
repos, because they didn't notice they need to branch and away from rawhide.


It's a mistake, ... mistakes happen, ...

The only things making me angry about this, is this particular mistake
(mock *.cfg not being in place in time) not having happened for the
first time and when taking into account the responsible person's
attitude and position in Fedora.

Ralf
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-03-2010, 02:21 PM
"Paul W. Frields"
 
Default Fedora 13 has been branched!!

On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 06:47:23AM +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 03/03/2010 05:54 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> >
> >> On 03/03/2010 05:17 AM, Jesse Keating wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 03:34 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> >>>> Where is the mock update?
> >>>>
> >>>> It's been nearly 2 weeks since you've promissed to do so, but this
> >>>> hasn't happened.
> >>>>
> >>>> There still are no mock configurations providing setups for fedora-13
> >>>> (/etc/mock/fedora-13-{i386,x86_64}.cfg)
> >>>
> >>> mock-1.0.5 was pushed into updates-testing a number of days ago that
> >>> includes the new 13 configs. They'll get moved over to the various
> >>> stables shortly.
> >>
> >> Too late, you failed to provide them in time.
> >
> > +1
> >
> > Yet another perfect example of an update which should have been pushed
> > directly to stable.
> No, this package should have been in place ("in updates") at the same
> time, the F-13 branch had been activated in Fedora's CVS.
>
> This wasn't the case, and thus likely caused:
>
> * maintainers wanting to "make mockbuild" F-13 package in CVS to hit
> build failures (I did so) or to test-build against the wrong repository
> (building against rawhide instead of F-13).
>
> * maintainers having to waste their time on reimplementing local
> versions of /etc/mock/fedora-13-<*>.cfgs (I did so).
>
> * third parties (e.g. rpmfusion) building packages against the wrong
> repos, because they didn't notice they need to branch and away from rawhide.
>
>
> It's a mistake, ... mistakes happen, ...
>
> The only things making me angry about this, is this particular mistake
> (mock *.cfg not being in place in time) not having happened for the
> first time and when taking into account the responsible person's
> attitude and position in Fedora.

I looked up the rel-eng SOP for mass branching and added this item to
it, which I'm betting took no more time than writing unnecessarily
hostile email. Be part of the solution.

https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=Mass_Branching_SOP&diff=157055&old id=152747

--
Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/
gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/
Where open source multiplies: http://opensource.com
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-09-2010, 12:34 AM
Jesse Keating
 
Default Fedora 13 has been branched!!

Sorry for the delay in getting back.

On Fri, 2010-02-19 at 20:05 +0100, Till Maas wrote:
> I updated it to mention the ticket handling.
>
> I just wonder, is there no verification done one the request, e.g. is
> everybody allowed to request a build override or is it restricted to
> package (co)maintainers and provenpackagers?
> I only found this regarding verification:
>
> | Buildroot overrides usually means that something is soname bumping. Be
> | sure this is a sane update to do in Fedora
>
> How is this handled?

Not very well (: It's very vague and not helpful I understand. We
don't really do any verification that the person requesting the override
is the person owning the package, we've just assumed that the requester
knew what they were doing for the most part. As far as "sane update",
we've seen recently that this is a very... varied meaning, so it's
probably best to remove this and instead reference the current update
guidelines we have. I think it's something of a gut feeling as far as
whether the update should be questioned. Updating something like python
and requiring everything to be built against it would not be OK, but
that's a pretty extreme end of the spectrum.

>
> > https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/report/3 can help you somewhat see the
> > open tickets, if there is a tag request ticket assigned to rel-eng@ that
> > means it likely hasn't been operated on.
>
> This query only reports tickets assigned to rel-eng@ in the component
> koji, I guess it is more accurate or are there many tag requests that
> are not in the koji component?

Because the releng trac is a webform, and we have more than one
component, users have accidentally picked the wrong component for the
tag requests, and have accidentally forced assignment of the tickets.
For those reasons I thought it best to look at every ticket and examine
the subject line to see if it's a tag request or not, as humans cannot
be trusted to not make mistakes :/

> https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/query?status=new&status=assigned&status=reopened&c omponent=koji&owner=rel-eng%40lists.fedoraproject.org&order=priority
>
> I added this to the SOP as well.
>

--
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- Freedom˛ is a feature!
identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 07:13 PM.

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