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, 03:07 PM
Seth Vidal
 
Default Refining the update queues/process

On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Till Maas wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 08:42:57AM -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Till Maas wrote:
>
>>> Are there even any metrics about how many bad updates happened? For me
>>> bug that can be fixed issuing an update are a lot more than regressions
>>> with updates or new bugs introduced with updates. If updates are slowed
>>> down, this will get even worse. Especially because the proposal is to
>>> use time instead of test coverage as the criterion to push an update to
>>> stable.
>>
>> Actually the proposal is time AND test coverage.
>
> I mind have misunderstood it, but afaics it only says that it will be
> tested, because it spent time in updates-testing, but this is not even
> true nowadays, even if packages stay long in updates-testing.

Having more time opens us up to more testing days and in the near future
autoqa to help us bounce obviously bad things.

-sv

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-03-2010, 03:10 PM
Seth Vidal
 
Default Refining the update queues/process

On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Peter Lemenkov wrote:

> 2010/3/3 Seth Vidal <skvidal@fedoraproject.org>:
>>
>>
>> On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>> Feel free to think so, however can not disagree more.
>>>> Ralf, we've never agreed on much of anything. Why should this be
>>>> different?
>>>
>>> What do you expect? I consider you (and a couple of other further
>>> members of FPB and FESCO) to be gradually running down Fedora, e.g. by
>>> advocating ever more regulations, installing more and more committees,
>>> and by trying to suppress the community.
>
>> Fantastic.
>> You have a nice day.
>
> And what about tickets, closed with "FIXED UPSTREAM" w/o actually
> applying fix to a package?
>

Those items will be released in the next release of yum or in the next
fedora release. If the bug is serious or a security issue I will often
backport a patch.

-sv

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-03-2010, 04:03 PM
Ralf Corsepius
 
Default Refining the update queues/process

On 03/03/2010 04:51 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:

> For me personally the type of update I'd like to see slowed down is the
> pure enhancement update or new package updates, ones that do nothing but
> swallow up the latest upstream build or scm snapshot to add new
> features.

#1 on your personal list should be "not breaking package deps".

#2 should be removing prematurely deployed, dysfunctional packages from
the DVD. Confronting users with incidents like ABRT's introduction into
FC12 or in the early stages of SELinux and PulseAudio is not helpful.

Ralf
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-03-2010, 04:06 PM
Ralf Corsepius
 
Default Refining the update queues/process

On 03/03/2010 05:10 PM, Seth Vidal wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Peter Lemenkov wrote:
>
>> 2010/3/3 Seth Vidal<skvidal@fedoraproject.org>:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> Feel free to think so, however can not disagree more.
>>>>> Ralf, we've never agreed on much of anything. Why should this be
>>>>> different?
>>>>
>>>> What do you expect? I consider you (and a couple of other further
>>>> members of FPB and FESCO) to be gradually running down Fedora, e.g. by
>>>> advocating ever more regulations, installing more and more committees,
>>>> and by trying to suppress the community.
>>
>>> Fantastic.
>>> You have a nice day.
>>
>> And what about tickets, closed with "FIXED UPSTREAM" w/o actually
>> applying fix to a package?
>>
>
> Those items will be released in the next release of yum or in the next
> fedora release. If the bug is serious or a security issue I will often
> backport a patch.

QED: You don't fix your bugs, but prefer confronting users with them and
force them to dig out your "fixes" to work-around the issues they are
facing.

You can't seriously expect me to show any respect for you and the
committees you are member of.



--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-03-2010, 05:03 PM
James Antill
 
Default Refining the update queues/process

On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 18:06 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 03/03/2010 05:10 PM, Seth Vidal wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Peter Lemenkov wrote:
> >> And what about tickets, closed with "FIXED UPSTREAM" w/o actually
> >> applying fix to a package?
> >>
> >
> > Those items will be released in the next release of yum or in the next
> > fedora release. If the bug is serious or a security issue I will often
> > backport a patch.
>
> QED: You don't fix your bugs, but prefer confronting users with them and
> force them to dig out your "fixes" to work-around the issues they are
> facing.

No, we don't fix _all_ bugs immediately, so as to not introduce
unnecessary regressions. This is the engineering part of "software
engineering". And, yes, users can often personally work around their
problems by installing from rawhide/etc. ... without adding risk to
anyone else.
Some bug reporters have argued that their bug is more critical than we
think, some do change our minds, that's fine and I'm happy to discuss it
with them. But your desire that we should instantly rebase for all bugs,
immediately, and no matter the risk is something you will have to live
without.

Again, rawhide is => that way. Have fun.

--
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, 05:06 PM
Kevin Kofler
 
Default Refining the update queues/process

Seth Vidal wrote:
> Having more time opens us up to more testing days and in the near future
> autoqa to help us bounce obviously bad things.

The whole point of AutoQA is that it can get (some) testing done fast
(otherwise why bother with automation?), I don't see why we need to slow
things down for AutoQA to work!

Kevin Kofler

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-03-2010, 05:11 PM
Kevin Kofler
 
Default Refining the update queues/process

Seth Vidal wrote:
> Those items will be released in the next release of yum or in the next
> fedora release.

That can be quite a long time. Providing bugfixes to our stable releases is
important! I won't complain if you do upstream releases regularly and
systematically push them as updates, but having stuff be fixed only in the
next Fedora release is unacceptable.

Kevin Kofler

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-03-2010, 05:13 PM
Kevin Kofler
 
Default Refining the update queues/process

Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> Your testing group will *never* be able to test much more than a very
> tiny subset of use cases -- Let them test their limited testing
> scenarios, but keep them out of the rest of testing.
>
> => Instead of slowing down things by deploying a testing group, speed up
> things by fixing bug ASAP and ban "FIX UPSTREAM" (Like you are usually
> doing).
>
> It might be news to you, but experience tells this kind of strategy
> converges towards "stability", in mid-terms.
>
> Your strategy leads to over-all less testing, more bureaucracy and low
> quality.

Strong +1!

> What do you expect? I consider you [Seth Vidal] (and a couple of other
> further members of FPB and FESCO) to be gradually running down Fedora,
> e.g. by advocating ever more regulations, installing more and more
> committees, and by trying to suppress the community.

Back in the day I thought it was just you, but these days I've gradually
come to realize that you are right! :-(

Kevin Kofler

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-03-2010, 05:14 PM
Ralf Corsepius
 
Default Refining the update queues/process

On 03/03/2010 07:03 PM, James Antill wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 18:06 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>> On 03/03/2010 05:10 PM, Seth Vidal wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Peter Lemenkov wrote:
>>>> And what about tickets, closed with "FIXED UPSTREAM" w/o actually
>>>> applying fix to a package?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Those items will be released in the next release of yum or in the next
>>> fedora release. If the bug is serious or a security issue I will often
>>> backport a patch.
>>
>> QED: You don't fix your bugs, but prefer confronting users with them and
>> force them to dig out your "fixes" to work-around the issues they are
>> facing.
>
> No, we don't fix _all_ bugs immediately, so as to not introduce
> unnecessary regressions.
Seth doesn't fix bugs even when they are apparent and when there is no
risk at all.

> This is the engineering part of "software
> engineering". And, yes, users can often personally work around their
> problems by installing from rawhide/etc. ... without adding risk to
> anyone else.
Read: You guys are being rude against the community.

> Some bug reporters have argued that their bug is more critical than we
> think, some do change our minds, that's fine and I'm happy to discuss it
> with them. But your desire that we should instantly rebase for all bugs,
> immediately, and no matter the risk is something you will have to live
> without.
I am not talking about "upgrading to a next" release. I am talking about
you to fix bugs. If you can't do so, then there's something wrong with
your development workflow.

> Again, rawhide is => that way. Have fun.
Wrong, you to finally fix the bugs your packages is nagging the users of
a "so-called stable Fedora" release. In other words: It's you who is
contributing to the malfunctions Fedora is suffering from.



--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-03-2010, 05:47 PM
Bruno Wolff III
 
Default Refining the update queues/process

On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 19:14:09 +0100,
Ralf Corsepius <rc040203@freenet.de> wrote:
> Seth doesn't fix bugs even when they are apparent and when there is no
> risk at all.

yum is a very critical package. Even if the chance of an undetected regression
is low, the consequences of pushing an update with one can be pretty bad making
the risk significant.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 08:28 PM.

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