Update threads are now hall-monitored

Okay. This has gone on long enough. The signal is gone from the
following threads:

* FESCo wants to ban direct stable pushes in Bodhi (urgent call forfeedback)
* Worthless updates
* Refining the update queues/process

Accordingly, I'm marking those threads as Hall-Monitored. Please stop
posting in them. If you have a concrete suggestion on how to improve
Fedora updates, please write it in a wiki page, open a FESCo trac
ticket, and they will consider it.

~spot, Hall Monitor
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

On 03/03/2010 02:27 PM, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
> Okay. This has gone on long enough. The signal is gone from the
> following threads:

The signal is not entirely gone, although it is getting weaker.

> * FESCo wants to ban direct stable pushes in Bodhi (urgent call forfeedback)
> * Worthless updates
> * Refining the update queues/process
>
> Accordingly, I'm marking those threads as Hall-Monitored. Please stop
> posting in them. If you have a concrete suggestion on how to improve
> Fedora updates, please write it in a wiki page, open a FESCo trac
> ticket, and they will consider it.

The problem is that having a concrete suggestion of how to improve
fedora updates requires knowing whether we want a more stable update
cycle or a more semi-rolling update style. It would be easy for us to
carte blanch hand down an edict on this, but that would also be wrong.
This is a community driven distribution, and by my count the number of
people that stood up in favor of semi-rolling updates was not that
different from the number of people that stood up for stable updates (I
have something like 4 for semi-rolling and 6 for stable, but many people
didn't make their preferences perfectly clear, and this count is from my
admittedly worthless memory of those that were explicit in their desires).

So while I agree that some of the posts where people are simply
attacking other people need to stop, I can't agree that this thread has
reached a stage where it is advisable to stop constructive discussions.
I would argue that it's necessary to continue constructive discussions
in order to reach the stage where a wiki page and proposals makes sense.

--
Doug Ledford <dledford@redhat.com>
GPG KeyID: CFBFF194
http://people.redhat.com/dledford

Infiniband specific RPMs available at
http://people.redhat.com/dledford/Infiniband

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

On 03/03/10 20:27, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
> Okay. This has gone on long enough. The signal is gone from the
> following threads:
>
> * FESCo wants to ban direct stable pushes in Bodhi (urgent call forfeedback)
> * Worthless updates
> * Refining the update queues/process
>
> Accordingly, I'm marking those threads as Hall-Monitored. Please stop
> posting in them. If you have a concrete suggestion on how to improve
> Fedora updates, please write it in a wiki page, open a FESCo trac
> ticket, and they will consider it.
>
> ~spot, Hall Monitor

What is hall monitored?
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

On 03/03/2010 04:30 PM, Doug Ledford wrote:
> So while I agree that some of the posts where people are simply
> attacking other people need to stop, I can't agree that this thread has
> reached a stage where it is advisable to stop constructive discussions.
> I would argue that it's necessary to continue constructive discussions
> in order to reach the stage where a wiki page and proposals makes sense.

I would say that the next steps should be one (or more) of the following:

* A proposal to adopt a more stable update cycle
* A proposal to adopt a more semi-rolling update style
* A hybrid proposal which deals with both cases

If you would like to write a proposal on those items (or any other
improvement related to updates management) and then start a new thread
focused on constructive discussion and honing of said proposal, I would
have no quarrel with it.

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

On Wed, 03 Mar 2010 22:39:44 +0100
nodata <lsof@nodata.co.uk> wrote:

> What is hall monitored?

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

On 03/03/2010 04:40 PM, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
> On 03/03/2010 04:30 PM, Doug Ledford wrote:
>> So while I agree that some of the posts where people are simply
>> attacking other people need to stop, I can't agree that this thread has
>> reached a stage where it is advisable to stop constructive discussions.
>> I would argue that it's necessary to continue constructive discussions
>> in order to reach the stage where a wiki page and proposals makes sense.
>
> I would say that the next steps should be one (or more) of the following:
>
> * A proposal to adopt a more stable update cycle
> * A proposal to adopt a more semi-rolling update style
> * A hybrid proposal which deals with both cases
>
> If you would like to write a proposal on those items (or any other
> improvement related to updates management) and then start a new thread
> focused on constructive discussion and honing of said proposal, I would
> have no quarrel with it.

Well, I *did* make a barebones proposal towards the third option in the
thread in question, and I intended to work some more on it (in a
constructive manner). But, I can put it in a new thread if you like.


--
Doug Ledford <dledford@redhat.com>
GPG KeyID: CFBFF194
http://people.redhat.com/dledford

Infiniband specific RPMs available at
http://people.redhat.com/dledford/Infiniband

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

On 03/03/2010 04:44 PM, Doug Ledford wrote:
> Well, I *did* make a barebones proposal towards the third option in the
> thread in question, and I intended to work some more on it (in a
> constructive manner). But, I can put it in a new thread if you like.

Please do so, it will hopefully focus the discussion.

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

On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 14:27 -0500, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
> Okay. This has gone on long enough. The signal is gone from the
> following threads:
>
> * FESCo wants to ban direct stable pushes in Bodhi (urgent call forfeedback)
> * Worthless updates
> * Refining the update queues/process
>
> Accordingly, I'm marking those threads as Hall-Monitored. Please stop
> posting in them. If you have a concrete suggestion on how to improve
> Fedora updates, please write it in a wiki page, open a FESCo trac
> ticket, and they will consider it.

sorry for a few further posts in 'worthless updates', I had a search
filter on, so didn't see this post.
--
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

On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 16:40 -0500, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
> On 03/03/2010 04:30 PM, Doug Ledford wrote:
> > So while I agree that some of the posts where people are simply
> > attacking other people need to stop, I can't agree that this thread has
> > reached a stage where it is advisable to stop constructive discussions.
> > I would argue that it's necessary to continue constructive discussions
> > in order to reach the stage where a wiki page and proposals makes sense.
>
> I would say that the next steps should be one (or more) of the following:
>
> * A proposal to adopt a more stable update cycle
> * A proposal to adopt a more semi-rolling update style
> * A hybrid proposal which deals with both cases
>
> If you would like to write a proposal on those items (or any other
> improvement related to updates management) and then start a new thread
> focused on constructive discussion and honing of said proposal, I would
> have no quarrel with it.

I'd note that the initial FESco proposal under discussion was actually
far more moderate than any of the above, and should be considered
separately from any of them. It can be implemented without constituting
a decision on what the actual character of updates should be.
--
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

On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 04:44:55PM -0500, Doug Ledford wrote:
> On 03/03/2010 04:40 PM, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
> > On 03/03/2010 04:30 PM, Doug Ledford wrote:
> >> So while I agree that some of the posts where people are simply
> >> attacking other people need to stop, I can't agree that this thread has
> >> reached a stage where it is advisable to stop constructive discussions.
> >> I would argue that it's necessary to continue constructive discussions
> >> in order to reach the stage where a wiki page and proposals makes sense.
> >
> > I would say that the next steps should be one (or more) of the following:
> >
> > * A proposal to adopt a more stable update cycle
> > * A proposal to adopt a more semi-rolling update style
> > * A hybrid proposal which deals with both cases
> >
> > If you would like to write a proposal on those items (or any other
> > improvement related to updates management) and then start a new thread
> > focused on constructive discussion and honing of said proposal, I would
> > have no quarrel with it.
>
> Well, I *did* make a barebones proposal towards the third option in the
> thread in question, and I intended to work some more on it (in a
> constructive manner). But, I can put it in a new thread if you like.
>
>
Note, you might find this useful in that:

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Release_Lifecycle(draft)

Attempt to define goals (semi-rolling vs "QA'd" [The more stable style]) as
well as the various pieces that we can affect to implement those goals

and:

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Release_Lifecycle_Proposals

Several people have made proposals which are listed here. I know of several
others (for instance, jresnik's proposal for different F-Current and
F-Current-1 update styles) and your own.

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