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 03-03-2010, 11:37 AM
Josh Boyer
 
Default FESCo wants to ban direct stable pushes in Bodhi (urgent call for feedback)

On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 10:54:57AM +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 17:53:40 -0800, Jesse wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 02:37 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> > Jesse Keating wrote:
>> > > That's a fair point, but there are significantly fewer people around to
>> > > fix critical issues should they arise on a weekend, and after working 5
>> > > weekdays, some of us like taking the weekend off.
>> >
>> > Well, I'm around on the weekends and the lack of update pushes for the whole
>> > weekend has irked me more than once. My intention is not to force you or
>> > Josh Boyer to work on weekends, but maybe we can find a new volunteer to do
>> > weekend pushes (and only weekend pushes, so they wouldn't be doing Fedora
>> > work the full week)? And ideally, update pushes should eventually be
>> > automatic, just like the Rawhide composes.
>> >
>> > Kevin Kofler
>> >
>>
>> Except there aren't enough key people available on the weekend to clean
>> up the crap if something goes wrong.
>
>What sort of "crap"? And what precautions could be added to avoid
>producing such crap that requires someone to clean it up (manually)?

1) Packages need to be signed. To do this, you need access to the signing keys.
This is a rather large hurdle to get over, but we're trying to make sure that
sigul lowers it a bit. It's not quite ready for more use yet, as we're
currently hitting issues with it crashing under load. This will be looked at
soon.

The end goal is probably to have koji sign the RPMs right after build and just
use a single "build" gpg-key to sign everything. However I'm not sure how
close we are to that.

2) Bodhi failures. These come in a variety of flavors. The most common is that
it goes to mash an updates-testing repo and koji has "nicely" pruned the signed
copies of the RPMs and mash can't download them. Fixing requires koji admin
access, again not something given out lightly.

We are taking some precautions on this by essentially re-writing the signed
copies for anything left in the various f1x-updates-testing tags on a daily
basis. That works well enough for us to actually get about a push-per day done,
but it certainly has races.

Other failures of the more bizarre nature happen as well, such as koji tag moves
failing, or bodhi getting turned off in the middle of a push, or people editing
updates mid-push and bodhi freaking out about that. These are more rare, but
do happen and often require lots of head scratching and admin-level access to
fix. At times, a new bodhi needs to be rolled out to fix it and only one person
can do that right now.

josh
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-03-2010, 12:34 PM
Seth Vidal
 
Default FESCo wants to ban direct stable pushes in Bodhi (urgent call for feedback)

On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Thomas Moschny wrote:


2010/3/3 Josh Boyer <jwboyer@gmail.com>:

On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 11:52:49PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:

On Tue, 2010-03-02 at 22:37 -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:


We've made a mess and as a member of fesco I'd expect you to be helping in
cleaning up the mess, not making it worse b/c fesco HAS to be about the
long term growth and sustainability of fedora.


I'm starting to think this thread needs a hall monitor. Unfortunately
half of them seem to be in it, swinging away.


Why? *Other than one instance, which was my own, there hasn't been anything in
this thread that I would consider hall monitor worthy.


Wording starts to get near to unacceptable imho. People not sharing
the view that there are to many updates to so-called stable releases
(a 'fire-hose' of a 'horrendous' and 'insane' amount of updates) are
denoted not being normal.


I think we've always referred to the stream of updates as 'the fire-hose'.
It's an expression from a movie called UHF. A character in the movie says
"You win the prize you get to drink from mr. firehose!" Then proceeds to
spray a firehose at a child who is excited to drink from the firehose.


in the context it is really funny.

-sv
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-03-2010, 03:48 PM
James Antill
 
Default FESCo wants to ban direct stable pushes in Bodhi (urgent call for feedback)

On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 17:09 +0100, Till Maas wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 11:02:51AM -0500, James Antill wrote:
> > If we had less updates, that changed less things and required more
> > testing before pushing them to users ... this would be entirely
> > possible.
>
> Less updates mean more changes per update or you have more buggy
> packages, because updates usually fix bugs.

As I would assume any programmer knows: Not all bugs are created equal.
Trading "no regressions" for "some minor bugs still remain" is a trade
lots of users are happy to make (see: every customer of every piece of
commercial software, ever).

--
James Antill - james@fedoraproject.org
http://yum.baseurl.org/wiki/releases
http://yum.baseurl.org/wiki/whatsnew/3.2.27
http://yum.baseurl.org/wiki/YumMultipleMachineCaching
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-03-2010, 03:48 PM
Adam Williamson
 
Default FESCo wants to ban direct stable pushes in Bodhi (urgent call for feedback)

On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 07:28 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 11:52:49PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> >On Tue, 2010-03-02 at 22:37 -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
> >
> >> We've made a mess and as a member of fesco I'd expect you to be helping in
> >> cleaning up the mess, not making it worse b/c fesco HAS to be about the
> >> long term growth and sustainability of fedora.
> >
> >I'm starting to think this thread needs a hall monitor. Unfortunately
> >half of them seem to be in it, swinging away.
>
> Why? Other than one instance, which was my own, there hasn't been anything in
> this thread that I would consider hall monitor worthy.

Well, a) it's becoming an entrenched cycle of the same points over and
over, but more importantly b) both sides seem to have started imputing
sinister motives to the other, which doesn't help anyone. As far as I
can see both sides genuinely think what they're proposing is right for
Fedora, but when people start saying things like "I'd expect you to be
helping in cleaning up the mess, not making it worse" or "
The implication being that I'm not normal? I find that insulting" or
telling others in almost so many words that they shouldn't be involved
with Fedora - "If you feel that there is a niche here for what you're
trying to build, then it shouldn't be hard for you to find like minded
people to stake out your own piece of the linux user pie. I wish you
luck with that" - it's getting perilously close to a personal argument.

> >Quis monitoret ipsos monitores?
>
> Nobody. Fun, eh?

I'm sure nothing could possibly go wrong...
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-03-2010, 05:09 PM
Nicolas Mailhot
 
Default FESCo wants to ban direct stable pushes in Bodhi (urgent call for feedback)

Le mercredi 03 mars 2010 à 16:32 +0100, Kevin Kofler a écrit :
> Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> > If KDE wants to be on an equal footing with GNOME (another of your
> > repeated complains) it needs to learn synchronizing with distro releases
> > like GNOME (and kernel, and xorg did).
>
> I don't see this as being practical at all. Not all distros even release at
> the same time as Fedora and Ubuntu in the first place.

And that does not matter, because you can not synchronize with everyone,
so you'd better synchronize with major distros, and other major software
packages.

> > You're distorting the Fedora model to accommodate KDE roadmaps.
>
> No, this goes far beyond KDE. KDE roadmaps are just one strong argument for
> doing things this way. Many more packages benefit or would benefit from
> version upgrades during a release.

This is only working for you because KDE is a high-visibility project
and can mobilize resources even outside the distro normal schedule. The
other packages you talk of could benefit if QA was cheap and plentiful
but QA is not cheap and plentiful and pretending we do not have resource
constrains and can afford no to forget about planification will not
change this fact. I'm sure there are *many* Fedora SIGs that would
dearly love to have a tenth of the resources you squander on
semi-rolling KDE releases so they can hit their own 6-month target
releases (yes the very period you find too short). Every effort you make
to destabilize the normal six-month cycle because you can afford to
hurts those packagers.

--
Nicolas Mailhot


--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-03-2010, 05:52 PM
Juha Tuomala
 
Default FESCo wants to ban direct stable pushes in Bodhi (urgent call for feedback)

On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> You're distorting the Fedora model to accommodate KDE roadmaps.
>
> No, this goes far beyond KDE. KDE roadmaps are just one strong argument for
> doing things this way. Many more packages benefit or would benefit from
> version upgrades during a release.

In my undestanding, KDE makes new feature releases (b releases) and
bug fix releases (c releases), where versions are kde-a.b.c.

How is that 'one strong argument for doing things this way' in
fedora where new features are added into new Fn releases?

I talked to rdieter about this and said that part of the problem
is that not all of the bug fixes end to bugfix releases and would
be thus ommitted from stable fedora releases. Being a pure KDE
upstream problem, it should be solved there and would certainly
get more focus if fedora would start enforcing it.

If KDE doesn't put required focus to that problem, then it's the
SIG/pkg maintener's problem to communicate that with upstream.

For note, I'm among those who don't want feature upgrades into
stable fedora release. If you're so happy to chase latest and
gratest, feel free to do it in your sf.net private repo.

Your current proposal:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/KDE/Stability_Proposal

still fails in that part.


Tuju

--
Ajatteleva ihminen tarvitsee unta.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-03-2010, 06:33 PM
Juha Tuomala
 
Default FESCo wants to ban direct stable pushes in Bodhi (urgent call for feedback)

On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Chris Adams wrote:
> By the same token, if you want rolling update releases, feel free to do
> it in your own private repo. See how well that argument works?

No i don't. I'm using a mainstream distribution and thus I expect to
get them. Just like the upstream has intended them to happen.


Tuju

--
Ajatteleva ihminen tarvitsee unta.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-03-2010, 06:48 PM
Juha Tuomala
 
Default FESCo wants to ban direct stable pushes in Bodhi (urgent call for feedback)

On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> The strong argument is that KDE and Fedora release cycles are not in sync
> and our users would thus have to wait months for the new KDE.

As many have stated, not all people *want* those feature updates
to stable release. By pushing them by force, you remove the user's
choice to do as (s)he wishes.

>From those zillion posts past days I see that this is impossible to
understand.

>> I talked to rdieter about this and said that part of the problem
>> is that not all of the bug fixes end to bugfix releases and would
>> be thus ommitted from stable fedora releases. Being a pure KDE
>> upstream problem, it should be solved there and would certainly
>> get more focus if fedora would start enforcing it.
>
> I doubt it. Other distros are already much more conservative than we are,
> that doesn't prevent this from happening. So that's another argument for the
> upgrades.

Upstream has written their own policy. It's their problem to follow it.

> In fact, KDE upstream doesn't even provide any further bugfix releases for
> the old branch after releasing the new one, they just don't have the
> resources to do that. So upgrading is the only way to continue picking up
> fixes.

Which is good reason to upgrade the Fedora release if those still
open issues really bother the enduser.

> It's a compromise. Under that proposal, we'd push only one KDE upgrade per
> release instead of 2, and you'd have to upgrade to the latest released
> Fedora to get the latest KDE.

Pushing even one single feature release breaks the thing that fesco's new
proposal is trying to achive.

Nuff said from my part on this topic.


Tuju

--
Ajatteleva ihminen tarvitsee unta.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-04-2010, 01:04 AM
Matthew Woehlke
 
Default FESCo wants to ban direct stable pushes in Bodhi (urgent call for feedback)

James Antill wrote:
> I think I'm starting to see a pattern here:
>
> . Kevin doesn't use DVD updates, so anything that needlessly breaks DVD
> updates is fine because DVD updates are worthless.

DVD updates are by definition broken, unless you have never run updates
on your previous system.

> . Kevin doesn't use selective updates, so packagers doing less work and
> not testing for selective updates is fine because selective updates are
> worthless.

Selective updates exponentially increase the cost of testing. There is
no reasonable way to even attempt to test them.

@Kevin: I wouldn't actually go so far as to call selective updates
"broken", at least not by definition. It's theoretically possible that
you will be fine doing selective updates (unlike DVD upgrades which,
currently, /are/ broken by definition). It's just not feasible to test
them, ergo the stance that they are not supported.

> . Kevin doesn't mind restarting KDE after updates, so any users
> complaining their desktop doesn't work after an update can be ignored.

I think you are making things up here. The point was rather that some
things have the unfortunate side effect of not working after being
updated until restarted. Firefox, for example...

If you care, /don't update them/ until you are prepared to deal with the
need to restart things. The alternative is to not push updates at all,
which I consider clearly unacceptable.

> ...if only someone had let me know that Fedora had become your personal
> distro.

Just because Kevin is on one side of the 'likes version updates in
stable' fence doesn't make it "his personal distro", any more than
dragging it to the other side of said fence makes it "your personal distro".

--
Matthew
Please do not quote my e-mail address unobfuscated in message bodies.
--
Joe: This is a big deal, because now some tiny minority has lobbied for
changes that end up hurting everyone else.
Bob: Yeah, I know. Par for the course. I hate the American government.
Joe: Actually, I was talking about X.org...

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-04-2010, 01:11 AM
Matthew Woehlke
 
Default FESCo wants to ban direct stable pushes in Bodhi (urgent call for feedback)

Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Kevin Kofler<kevin.kofler@chello.at> said:
>> Such as? We're filling a niche, this is one of our unique selling points,
>> you want to throw out the baby with the bathwater!
>
> Who is this "we" you keep speaking of? When did huge dumps of updates
> in supposedly stable releases become an official "selling point" of
> Fedora?

Since at least Fedora 8, when I switched from RHEL for exactly this reason!

I use Fedora *because* new things show up quickly... yes, even in
released versions. If I didn't want that, I'd use something else.

--
Matthew
Please do not quote my e-mail address unobfuscated in message bodies.
--
Joe: This is a big deal, because now some tiny minority has lobbied for
changes that end up hurting everyone else.
Bob: Yeah, I know. Par for the course. I hate the American government.
Joe: Actually, I was talking about X.org...

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

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 06:35 AM.

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