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 03-08-2010, 09:31 PM
Adam Williamson
 
Default Proposed udpates policy change

On Mon, 2010-03-08 at 23:21 +0100, Sven Lankes wrote:

> > It is the expectation of Fesco that the majority of updates should
> > easily be able to garner the necessary karma in a minimal space of time.
>
> I don't know what to say.
>
> If Fesco is aiming at getting rid of all the pesky packagers maintaining low
> profile packages: You're well on your way.

This is a proposal to be voted on by FESco. Anyone can present any
proposal they like to FESco. It's not FESco's expectation (or Fedora
policy) unless they accept it. Right now, it's Matthew Garrett's
expectation, not necessarily anyone else's
--
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 03-08-2010, 09:31 PM
"Richard W.M. Jones"
 
Default Proposed udpates policy change

On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 05:23:34PM -0500, David Malcolm wrote:
[...]
> Hope this is helpful; FWIW I think we need better automated testing
> around our updates process.

OK OK, it was half a joke. I agree that automated testing is the way
forward here. Hopefully AutoQA will help here. And we should trust
packagers, especially for non-critical-path packages. (Isn't that
what critical path is all about?)

Rich.

--
Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones
New in Fedora 11: Fedora Windows cross-compiler. Compile Windows
programs, test, and build Windows installers. Over 70 libraries supprt'd
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/MinGW http://www.annexia.org/fedora_mingw
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-08-2010, 09:32 PM
Kevin Fenzi
 
Default Proposed udpates policy change

...snip...

Thanks for working on this Matthew!

A small issue:

- If the policy states +3 is needed, does that mean we are locking all
updates to require this amount, no more no less? This could be bad
for packages where the maintainer might want more testing. Perhaps it
should be 'no less than +3' ? or 'at least +3' ?

I personally like this idea (at least to try out and see how well it
works). I do think we should continue to address longer term update or
pace issues.

I would suggest people with feedback write up their feedback clearly
for this thread and avoid back and forth filibustering.

kevin
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-08-2010, 09:32 PM
Al Dunsmuir
 
Default Proposed udpates policy change

-1. Nay. NoWay. No thanks. Uh uh.

I could find little or nothing in your proposal to which I agreed... so
decided not to quote any.

I just registered at Fedoraforums.org and voted "adventurous" in
Adam's poll. Just to make sure my voice is heard, and not the
shouting of folks who think they know what I want, and want to limit
my choices for my own good.

I'm using Fedora, which means I want to run leading edge (or at worst current)
software. I do software development, and want to have access to the latest
and greatest without running Rawhide. I've been a Fedora user since FC3.

I have no interest in using RHEL on my systems. You appear to want to turn
Fedora into a RHEL clone. Centos does that well enough already.

If you don't want to update your own packages except in rawhide or
the development release at alpha level, that is your choice. Please do
not inhibit my choices by trying to outlaw the very thing that makes Fedora
vital for me as an end user.

By the way, you made a trivial error when you created the Subject line.
Since stuff like that happens with packages, I'd like packagers to
have the ability to correct problems. Similarly, if a package is
under active development I appreciate the ability to receive
enhancements in the service stream for supported releases.

Either fixes or enhancements should be reasonably well tested, and
well documented (including update comments). Radically incompatible
fixes/enhancements that inconvenience users and break running systems
are indeed problematic... why yes, I do run bind on my Fedora servers.

Al


--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-08-2010, 09:38 PM
Adam Williamson
 
Default Proposed udpates policy change

On Mon, 2010-03-08 at 17:32 -0500, Al Dunsmuir wrote:
> -1. Nay. NoWay. No thanks. Uh uh.
>
> I could find little or nothing in your proposal to which I agreed... so
> decided not to quote any.
>
> I just registered at Fedoraforums.org and voted "adventurous" in
> Adam's poll. Just to make sure my voice is heard, and not the
> shouting of folks who think they know what I want, and want to limit
> my choices for my own good.

As Matthew expressly said, "This is entirely orthogonal to the ongoing
discussions regarding whether updates in stable releases should be
expected to provide features or purely bugfixes"

The proposal neither intentionally nor accidentally prevents people
pushing 'adventurous' updates. It just requires that all updates receive
a certain level of testing feedback to be accepted.

You may still think it's a bad proposal, but it's important to note that
it's not about restricting the types of updates that can be done. So
voting in the poll I started doesn't have much to do with *this*
proposal.
--
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 03-08-2010, 09:45 PM
Michael Schwendt
 
Default Proposed udpates policy change

On Mon, 8 Mar 2010 23:21:45 +0100, Sven wrote:

> On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 09:59:29PM +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>
> > Before being added to updates, the package must receive a net karma of
> > +3 in Bodhi.
>
> [...]
>
> > It is the expectation of Fesco that the majority of updates should
> > easily be able to garner the necessary karma in a minimal space of time.
>
> I don't know what to say.

Right now (and after sending my early reply), I feel dizzy. I hope to
not take another look at the fedora devel list folder until tomorrow
when it will contain hundreds of message. After those monster threads
last week, now this.

> If Fesco is aiming at getting rid of all the pesky packagers maintaining low
> profile packages: You're well on your way.

Well said.

Also important, Matthew even fills a FESCo seat. Proposals like that are not
what I expect from FESCo members. I'm severely disappointing.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-08-2010, 09:48 PM
Michael Schwendt
 
Default Proposed udpates policy change

On Mon, 8 Mar 2010 23:45:57 +0100, I wrote:

> Also important, Matthew even fills a FESCo seat. Proposals like that are not
> what I expect from FESCo members. I'm severely disappointing.

s/disappointing/disappointed/

Only demonstrates that I would prefer to stay away from such crap. Perhaps it's
time to unsubscribe from the list and take more drastic action when such a proposal
would be approved by FESCo.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-08-2010, 09:57 PM
Matthew Garrett
 
Default Proposed udpates policy change

On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 11:18:17PM +0100, Björn Persson wrote:
> Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > Proposal
> > --------
> >
> > The ability for maintainers to flag an update directly into the updates
> > repository will be disabled. Before being added to updates, the package
> > must receive a net karma of +3 in Bodhi.
>
> Would that apply also to new packages being pushed as updates to stable
> releases, or only to updates to existing packages?

That is a good point. It's obviously the case that a new package can't
be less functional than the non-existent package it replaces, but
there's also a risk that a new package could break other packages that
are already installed - which is basically a way of me saying "I don't
know yet", and I hope that we can sort that out with some further
discussion. The real risk I see with blocking new packages is that
there's much less chance for them to get external testing.

--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.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 12:59 PM.

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