FESCo wants to ban direct stable pushes in Bodhi (urgent call for feedback)
 

On Fr, 2010-02-26 at 13:16 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
[...]
> We really need more transparency in decision making!
[...]
> 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!

+1

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

FESCo wants to ban direct stable pushes in Bodhi (urgent call for feedback)
 

On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 13:16 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:

I think banning stable pushes is the right idea. None of your reasons is
very convincing.

> * 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.

But presumably we still want to test the fix, to avoid introducing yet
another regression ?!

> * 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.

Just go up to your first argument: the breage slips through. That is
exactly what happens if your judgement of 'low risk' turns out to be
wrong. And it will...

> * 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.

Again: go up. Breakage always happens to somebody else. That one person
tested the fix is not enough.



Matthias

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

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:
> 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.

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.

Bringinig down productivity of good packagers for a few bad ones, is,
in my opinion, not a good move.

Also, I find it quite ridiculous to have to give use cases, if people
in FESCo have never needed a direct push to stable, they necessarily
haven't done enough packaging -- though seeing who is in FESCo, it looks
quite strange to me since some members are seasoned packagers and some
even were here before bodhi.

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

FESCo wants to ban direct stable pushes in Bodhi (urgent call for feedback)
 

----- "Matthias Clasen" <mclasen@redhat.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 13:16 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>
> I think banning stable pushes is the right idea. None of your reasons
> is
> very convincing.
>
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.

The process of updates is right now inconvenient and it could lead to
more bugs fixed as 'closed in rawhide'.

> > * 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.
>
> But presumably we still want to test the fix, to avoid introducing
> yet
> another regression ?!
>
> > * 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.
>
> Just go up to your first argument: the breage slips through. That is
> exactly what happens if your judgement of 'low risk' turns out to be
> wrong. And it will...
>
> > * 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.
>
> Again: go up. Breakage always happens to somebody else. That one
> person
> tested the fix is not enough.
>
>
>
> Matthias
>
> --
> devel mailing list
> devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

FESCo wants to ban direct stable pushes in Bodhi (urgent call for feedback)
 

On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 08:14:13AM -0500, Marcela Maslanova wrote:
>
>----- "Matthias Clasen" <mclasen@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 13:16 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>>
>> I think banning stable pushes is the right idea. None of your reasons
>> is
>> very convincing.
>>
>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?

Also, doing an _update_ to fix a BR seems rather absurd. If there is no
functional change to the package when doing the BR change, then there is really
no reason to push an update for that. The same is true for spec file comment
changes, or any other change that has no real impact to the package at runtime.

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

FESCo wants to ban direct stable pushes in Bodhi (urgent call for feedback)
 

On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 02:07:05PM +0100, Patrice Dumas wrote:
>On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 01:16:43PM +0100, Kevin Kofler 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.
>
>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.
>
>Bringinig down productivity of good packagers for a few bad ones, is,
>in my opinion, not a good move.
>
>Also, I find it quite ridiculous to have to give use cases, if people
>in FESCo have never needed a direct push to stable, they necessarily
>haven't done enough packaging -- though seeing who is in FESCo, it looks
>quite strange to me since some members are seasoned packagers and some
>even were here before bodhi.

This is why it would have been prudent to wait for an actual policy proposal.

Nobody said disallow direct-to-stable pushes completely, entirely, with no
exceptions. That would indeed be absurd.

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

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:
>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).

The time period is mere speculation on your part.

>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!)

Did you ever thing, maybe for a second, that people are busy and they view this
as important and _don't_ want to draft a half-assed policy with a bunch of
holes in it?

You've now opened this discussion with NO insight to what a proposed policy
would be. You've left out parts that were discussed in the meeting as options
(like mechanisms to allow direct-to-stable pushes with FESCo/rel-eng/QA karma),
and you've generally painted this as "FESCo WANTS TO TELL YOU THAT THEY KNOW
BETTER THAN YOU".

Not only that, but you're undermining your fellow FESCo members and not even
waiting for the full policy to come out simply because you don't seem to think
any such policy could ever be suitable for you. Great, if you don't agree with
it then vote against it. But you should at least let those interested in having
a discussion on this come forward and present their OWN ideas/policies without
you already campaigning against it.

Transparency in process is great and I think it is extermely important. What
you've done is not transparency. What you've started is a smear campaign
against a draft policy that hasn't even been written yet. Way to be a class-A
dickhead.

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

FESCo wants to ban direct stable pushes in Bodhi (urgent call for feedback)
 

----- "Josh Boyer" <jwboyer@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 08:14:13AM -0500, Marcela Maslanova wrote:
> >
> >----- "Matthias Clasen" <mclasen@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 13:16 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> >>
> >> I think banning stable pushes is the right idea. None of your
> reasons
> >> is
> >> very convincing.
> >>
> >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?
>
They don't care about bodhi and probably they don't know about it.

> Also, doing an _update_ to fix a BR seems rather absurd. If there is
> no
> functional change to the package when doing the BR change, then there
> is really
> no reason to push an update for that. The same is true for spec file
> comment
> changes, or any other change that has no real impact to the package at
> runtime.
>
> josh
> --
> devel mailing list
> devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

FESCo wants to ban direct stable pushes in Bodhi (urgent call for feedback)
 

On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 02:23:33PM +0100, Till Maas 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, 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.

You've just illustrated the bodhi process working AS IT IS SUPPOSED TO. You
had testers giving karma, and they all had positive feedback, which means that
THE PACKAGE WAS TESTED BEFORE IT WENT TO STABLE.

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

FESCo wants to ban direct stable pushes in Bodhi (urgent call for feedback)
 

On Fri, 26 Feb 2010, Josh Boyer wrote:

> On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 08:14:13AM -0500, Marcela Maslanova wrote:
> >
> >----- "Matthias Clasen" <mclasen@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 13:16 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> >>
> >> I think banning stable pushes is the right idea. None of your reasons
> >> is
> >> very convincing.
> >>
> >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 think the problem there is most users aren't in the system and probably
don't know / care about testing. They'll leave that to others, they don't
want to be involved, they just want to use our stuff.

> Also, doing an _update_ to fix a BR seems rather absurd. If there is no
> functional change to the package when doing the BR change, then there is really
> no reason to push an update for that. The same is true for spec file comment
> changes, or any other change that has no real impact to the package at runtime.
>

I agree, and there's plenty of other reasons not to push an update.

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