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 02-26-2010, 11:16 AM
Kevin Kofler
 
Default FESCo wants to ban direct stable pushes in Bodhi (urgent call for feedback)

Hi,

at the FESCo meeting on Tuesday, everyone except me seemed to be set on
wanting to disable the possibility to queue updates directly to stable in
Bodhi. The only reason this was not decided right there (with no outside
feedback) is that Matthew Garrett (mjg59) wants to write down a precise
policy (which may end up even more restrictive, like some arbitrary minimum
time period of testing).

He also noted that doing so "gives us an opportunity to discuss various
consequences with affected teams". But sadly, the people driving this
proposed change haven't used this opportunity to discuss this issue in a
transparent way as I would have expected (and I've been waiting for almost 3
days!), so I am doing it now. (We really need more transparency in decision
making!)

I would like to collect feedback on this issue. If you want to disable
direct stable pushes, why? Could there be a less radical solution to that
problem (e.g. a policy discouraging direct stable pushes for some specific
types of changes rather than a blanket ban)? On the other hand, if (like me)
you DON'T want that feature to go away, please provide valid use cases.

Some situations where I and others have used direct stable pushes in the
past and where I think they're really warranted and should be used:
* A new package which doesn't replace anything, and which I verified to work
fine for me. It's clearly not a completely broken package and there's no way
it can break anybody's existing setup as nobody has that package yet.
* A regression which causes big breakage at least for some people slipped
through testing for whatever reason. We urgently want the fix to get out
ASAP.
* A regression slipped through testing for whatever reason and the patch is
trivial. We want the fix to get out ASAP, and the risk of breakage is very
low.
* A trivial bugfix (like a one-line diff), tested and confirmed to fix the
bug by at least one person. The risk of breakage is extremely low.

If you can think of more, please post them! But even if you just agree with
me, please reply so the other FESCo members don't think it's just me!

Kevin Kofler

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 02-26-2010, 11:36 AM
Christof Damian
 
Default FESCo wants to ban direct stable pushes in Bodhi (urgent call for feedback)

On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 13:16, Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler@chello.at> wrote:
> Some situations where I and others have used direct stable pushes in the
> past and where I think they're really warranted and should be used:
> * A new package which doesn't replace anything, and which I verified to work
> fine for me. It's clearly not a completely broken package and there's no way

That is the one reason where I do direct pushes.

> If you can think of more, please post them! But even if you just agree with
> me, please reply so the other FESCo members don't think it's just me!

Most of my tiny php packages are also never tested (at least not with
comments on bodhi), so the difference between a direct push and
testing doesn't really exist. But I don't mind having them two weeks
in testing anyway. Sometimes it is annoying because the next version
shows up while the previous one is not in stable yet.

Will there be a minimum number of days a package has to stay in testing?

Christof
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 02-26-2010, 11:43 AM
drago01
 
Default FESCo wants to ban direct stable pushes in Bodhi (urgent call for feedback)

On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 1:36 PM, Christof Damian <christof@damian.net> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 13:16, Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler@chello.at> wrote:
>> Some situations where I and others have used direct stable pushes in the
>> past and where I think they're really warranted and should be used:
>> * A new package which doesn't replace anything, and which I verified to work
>> fine for me. It's clearly not a completely broken package and there's no way
>
> That is the one reason where I do direct pushes.

Yeah for new packages this does not really make sense to me (i.e I
never push them to testing).
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 02-26-2010, 12:23 PM
Till Maas
 
Default FESCo wants to ban direct stable pushes in Bodhi (urgent call for feedback)

On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 01:16:43PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:

> I would like to collect feedback on this issue. If you want to disable
> direct stable pushes, why? Could there be a less radical solution to that
> problem (e.g. a policy discouraging direct stable pushes for some specific
> types of changes rather than a blanket ban)? On the other hand, if (like me)
> you DON'T want that feature to go away, please provide valid use cases.

Imho it takes too long to get packages into updates-testing, if people
are really interested in testing packages, they often seem to get
packages directly from Koji, e.g. on this update I got 3 positive Karma
points (one of them was anonymous) within 76 minutes after submitting
the update:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F12/FEDORA-2010-0604

It did not seem very useful to delay this update that also fixed several
very annoying bugs any further.

Regards
Till
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 02-26-2010, 12:26 PM
Orcan Ogetbil
 
Default FESCo wants to ban direct stable pushes in Bodhi (urgent call for feedback)

On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 8:14 AM, Marcela Maslanova wrote:
>
> ----- "Matthias Clasen" wrote:
>
>>
>> I think banning stable pushes is the right idea. None of your reasons
>> is
>> very convincing.
>>

+1

Another annoying issue is updates with no explanations. There is a
"Notes" field in bodhi that many people just ignore for an unknown
reason. Any update with less than a specified number of characters
(~40) in the Notes should also be banned.

I can't see a reason to make exceptions. If people used the testing
repo appropriately, things would actually get tested. I wish there was
a solution without some sort of banning, but apparently, there is not.

> My packages are rarely tested and I forget them in testing phase for a
> long time. Also fixing BR don't need testing.

This is not quite right. Adding a BR might mean enabling a previously
disabled feature of the software, which DOES need testing.

Any change needs testing. Even one liners.


Orcan
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 02-26-2010, 12:27 PM
Thomas Janssen
 
Default FESCo wants to ban direct stable pushes in Bodhi (urgent call for feedback)

On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 2:23 PM, Till Maas <opensource@till.name> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 01:16:43PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>
>> I would like to collect feedback on this issue. If you want to disable
>> direct stable pushes, why? Could there be a less radical solution to that
>> problem (e.g. a policy discouraging direct stable pushes for some specific
>> types of changes rather than a blanket ban)? On the other hand, if (like me)
>> you DON'T want that feature to go away, please provide valid use cases.
>
> Imho it takes too long to get packages into updates-testing

+1

--
LG Thomas

Dubium sapientiae initium
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 02-26-2010, 12:37 PM
Till Maas
 
Default FESCo wants to ban direct stable pushes in Bodhi (urgent call for feedback)

On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 08:20:10AM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 08:14:13AM -0500, Marcela Maslanova wrote:

> >My packages are rarely tested and I forget them in testing phase for a
> >long time. Also fixing BR don't need testing. I simply need push
> >immediately the new/fixed package.
>
> If nobody is testing your packages sitting in updates-testing, then maybe the
> users of that package aren't hitting whatever you're fixing or aren't otherwise
> having other issues. What is the benefit of pushing an update if nobody cares?

I already got feedback from a user who wanted a fixed package, but did
not want to test in in updates-testing. Also it is imho enough if the
package maintainer cares about the update. And as long as there is a bug
report that can be closed with an update, there is enough proof that
someone else cares about the bug. But it still does not mean that they
would use updates-testing or bodhi.

Regards
Till
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 02-26-2010, 12:41 PM
Parag N(पराग़)
 
Default FESCo wants to ban direct stable pushes in Bodhi (urgent call for feedback)

On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 5:46 PM, Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler@chello.at> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> at the FESCo meeting on Tuesday, everyone except me seemed to be set on
> wanting to disable the possibility to queue updates directly to stable in
> Bodhi. The only reason this was not decided right there (with no outside
> feedback) is that Matthew Garrett (mjg59) wants to write down a precise
> policy (which may end up even more restrictive, like some arbitrary minimum
> time period of testing).
>
> He also noted that doing so "gives us an opportunity to discuss various
> consequences with affected teams". But sadly, the people driving this
> proposed change haven't used this opportunity to discuss this issue in a
> transparent way as I would have expected (and I've been waiting for almost 3
> days!), so I am doing it now. (We really need more transparency in decision
> making!)
>
> I would like to collect feedback on this issue. If you want to disable
> direct stable pushes, why? Could there be a less radical solution to that
> problem (e.g. a policy discouraging direct stable pushes for some specific
> types of changes rather than a blanket ban)? On the other hand, if (like me)
> you DON'T want that feature to go away, please provide valid use cases.
>
> Some situations where I and others have used direct stable pushes in the
> past and where I think they're really warranted and should be used:
> * A new package which doesn't replace anything, and which I verified to work
> fine for me. It's clearly not a completely broken package and there's no way
> it can break anybody's existing setup as nobody has that package yet.
> * A regression which causes big breakage at least for some people slipped
> through testing for whatever reason. We urgently want the fix to get out
> ASAP.
> * A regression slipped through testing for whatever reason and the patch is
> trivial. We want the fix to get out ASAP, and the risk of breakage is very
> low.
> * A trivial bugfix (like a one-line diff), tested and confirmed to fix the
> bug by at least one person. The risk of breakage is extremely low.
>
> If you can think of more, please post them! But even if you just agree with
> me, please reply so the other FESCo members don't think it's just me!
>

Gr8, maintainers already got overhead by introducing branched F-13
and devel branches which made people to stop pushing updates to F-13
as we need to push them using bodhi and now bodhi also got
restrictions. I think people will stop contributing to Fedora now
after seeing so many policies and rules for maintaining packages for
Fedora releases.
- Parag.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 02-26-2010, 12:42 PM
drago01
 
Default FESCo wants to ban direct stable pushes in Bodhi (urgent call for feedback)

On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 1:43 PM, Michael Schwendt <mschwendt@gmail.com> wrote:
> [...]
> Unconvincing, though. History has shown that some packagers still managed
> to push new packages that suffered from broken deps [..]

Well than the review process failed ...
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 02-26-2010, 12:46 PM
Kevin Kofler
 
Default FESCo wants to ban direct stable pushes in Bodhi (urgent call for feedback)

Christof Damian wrote:
> Will there be a minimum number of days a package has to stay in testing?

I have no idea. I'm against any minimum number of days, but I'm against the
whole proposal anyway.

Kevin Kofler

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 01:00 AM.

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