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, 01:24 PM
Michael Schwendt
 
Default FESCo wants to ban direct stable pushes in Bodhi (urgent call for feedback)

On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 08:26:59 -0500, Orcan wrote:

> 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.

Nonsense. Such arbitrary rules will only drive off packagers. The field in
an update request may be empty because the list of bugzilla tickets is
sufficient and because the package %changelog adds further details.

It would be wrong to shut the door for everyone just because some
packagers don't include any info at all. FESCo's first step ought to
be to send a memo to all packagers. Bodhi could warn about missing
Notes when no bugzilla numbers have been entered. And if that still
doesn't help, individual packagers could be talked to.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 02-26-2010, 01:33 PM
Patrice Dumas
 
Default FESCo wants to ban direct stable pushes in Bodhi (urgent call for feedback)

On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 08:04:55AM -0600, Chris Adams wrote:
>
> EPEL has run this way for a while, and it doesn't seem to be a problem.

EPEL is very different. Packages in EPEL have been tested in fedora and so
will very rarely need hotfixes aor regression fixes (except for security
fixes, which if I recall well are covered by an exception already).

--
Pat
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 02-26-2010, 01:35 PM
Michael Schwendt
 
Default FESCo wants to ban direct stable pushes in Bodhi (urgent call for feedback)

On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 14:07:05 +0100, Patrice wrote:

> I may be remebering wrong, but an argument for bodhi against those who
> wanted a simpler push mechanism (like wwhat was in the fedora extra days)
> and argued that bodhi will add more unecessary delays was that there
> always was the possibility to push to stable for packagers.

Doesn't sound right. FE could push to stable always and much more quickly,
too. What was missing was a convenient interface for packagers which they
could use to decide between testing and stable or whether not to push a
build at all. It was necessary to submit special requests by email, since
by default every new build would become a test update. Packagers wanted
more control, and some even wanted no (!) delays by means of automatically
pushing to the repos.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 02-26-2010, 01:45 PM
Michael Schwendt
 
Default FESCo wants to ban direct stable pushes in Bodhi (urgent call for feedback)

On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 14:49:18 +0100, Till wrote:

> Imho it is more a perversion of how it is meant to be. This package was
> tested before it went to updates-testing and therefore went straight to
> stable. But the majority of packages goes to updates-testing and is not
> tested by someone else but the maintainer/does not get any karma, but
> still is pushed to stable after some time.

If the packager knows that the update fixes something, it would be wrong
to not publish it, and instead wait for some testers. It would be even
more wrong, if older updates for the package have not been tested either.

Consider yourself lucky, if your package is popular enough to attract
some brave testers. This is very different with other packages.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 02-26-2010, 01:49 PM
Michael Schwendt
 
Default FESCo wants to ban direct stable pushes in Bodhi (urgent call for feedback)

On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 14:42:29 +0100, drago01 wrote:

> > History has shown that some packagers still managed
> > to push new packages that suffered from broken deps [..]
>
> Well than the review process failed ...

Sometimes, not always. Don't forget that reviewers don't review builds
for all dists, but packagers often publish mass-builds for multiple dists
without prior testing.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 02-26-2010, 01:51 PM
Josh Boyer
 
Default FESCo wants to ban direct stable pushes in Bodhi (urgent call for feedback)

On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 09:41:34AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler@chello.at> writes:
>> 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:
>
>You forgot security fixes. The proposed policy is insane.

There is no proposed policy yet. What you are replying to is Kevin's take on
a discussion that was supposed to lead to a policy being drafted.

josh
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 02-26-2010, 01:59 PM
Jesse Keating
 
Default FESCo wants to ban direct stable pushes in Bodhi (urgent call for feedback)

On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 14:55 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > The possibility to publish hot-fixes is most important.
>
> +1. Not being able to push those out quickly would really suck.

What sucks more is recent "hot-fixes" which were even more broken than
the issue they were trying to fix. They were pushed directly to stable
and broke a significant number of systems because of a scenario the
maintainer didn't imagine or test.

--
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 02-26-2010, 02:17 PM
Patrice Dumas
 
Default FESCo wants to ban direct stable pushes in Bodhi (urgent call for feedback)

On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 03:35:58PM +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 14:07:05 +0100, Patrice wrote:
>
> > I may be remebering wrong, but an argument for bodhi against those who
> > wanted a simpler push mechanism (like wwhat was in the fedora extra days)
> > and argued that bodhi will add more unecessary delays was that there
> > always was the possibility to push to stable for packagers.
>
> Doesn't sound right. FE could push to stable always and much more quickly,
> too. What was missing was a convenient interface for packagers which they
> could use to decide between testing and stable or whether not to push a
> build at all. It was necessary to submit special requests by email, since
> by default every new build would become a test update. Packagers wanted
> more control, and some even wanted no (!) delays by means of automatically
> pushing to the repos.

Myabe I didn't explained myself correctly, but I exactly wanted to say
what you are saying too. People used to pushing to stable quickly in FE
days wanted to avoid as much as possible delays in bodhi, and part of
the delay is avoided by pushing directly to stable. Removing this possibility
would be a regression, then which is avoided if it is possible to push
to stable directly.

--
Pat
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 02-26-2010, 02:23 PM
Patrice Dumas
 
Default FESCo wants to ban direct stable pushes in Bodhi (urgent call for feedback)

On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 08:39:19AM -0600, Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Patrice Dumas <pertusus@free.fr> said:
> > On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 08:04:55AM -0600, Chris Adams wrote:
> > > EPEL has run this way for a while, and it doesn't seem to be a problem.
> >
> > EPEL is very different. Packages in EPEL have been tested in fedora and so
> > will very rarely need hotfixes aor regression fixes (except for security
> > fixes, which if I recall well are covered by an exception already).
>
> That reasoning would tend to argue for the reverse of EPEL's policy. If
> the packages are so stable, why go through testing?

Because EPEL has to be very stable, so additional time spent in testing is
even better, for example for reasons you highlight below. I never said
that packages should not go through testing in EPEL! But Fedora is another
thing.

> Every time a package is built, it is susceptible to new bugs. Packaging
> bugs, build requirement changes, and software bugs all creep in, and not
> trying to ram things out the door as fast as possible seems like a good
> idea.

Of course. But my point is not that EPEL should not go through mandatory
testing, but that Fedora packages are much more likely to require hotfixes
and regression fixes. When packages enter EPEL they may need some interation
testing, but very rarely hotfixes.

--
Pat
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 02-26-2010, 02:24 PM
Jesse Keating
 
Default FESCo wants to ban direct stable pushes in Bodhi (urgent call for feedback)

On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 15:59 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > I can't see a reason to make exceptions.
>
> What about the many valid reasons that have been brought up? E.g. if a
> package is destroying people's hardware, wouldn't you want the fix to go out
> BEFORE your hardware is dead?

I'd want it to get positive karma from at least a couple people before
throwing it out, to make sure that it doesn't make the situation worse.

Perhaps if you waited for the proposal instead of starting a "the sky is
falling" smear campaign, some of this would have been taken into
account, like being able to achieve karma right after the build is done,
and thus having passed a barrier to be able to go direct to stable.

If the update is to fix an issue as dire as you say it would be, there
would be no shortage of people who would be willing to grab the package
from the bodhi link and test it out, and the maintainer would have no
problem spending a little effort to find people to do this testing to
ensure his or her update could go to stable ASAP.

--
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 06:58 AM.

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