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 03-09-2010, 09:26 AM
Rahul Sundaram
 
Default Proposed udpates policy change

On 03/09/2010 03:29 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> 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.
>

I don't see how we expect that for all packages to get enough karma and
while some of them can get feedback within the current infrastructure
and considering the wide variety of packages (niche libraries for
example) it is naive to believe that we are going to accomplish and
hence my counter points are:

* We need improvements in our infrastructure (easy karma is one avenue
but Pacagekit integration and other ways to get users to provide input
needs to be in place first)
* We need to consider what we need as exceptions to this rule or more
sensibly enforce this rule only in crit path packages initially
* If a time limit is considered as a alternative we need to document
ways to escalate and file a exception if necessary and again I would
recommend only consider enforcing it for crit packages first

As it current stands I am against this proposal

Rahul
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-09-2010, 09:28 AM
Karel Zak
 
Default Proposed udpates policy change

On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 09:59:29PM +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> This is the policy that I expect to be discussed during the Fesco
> meeting tomorrow. This is entirely orthogonal to the ongoing discussions
> regarding whether updates in stable releases should be expected to
> provide features or purely bugfixes, and I don't see any conflict in
> introducing it before those discussions have concluded.

You didn't explain (in your proposal) why we need this change. Do you
have any statistics about number of regressions and bugs that have
been introduced by untested/bad updates in F-11 and F-12?

I think all such changes should be always based on real experience and
statistics otherwise the change is premature optimization.


> Introduction
> ------------
>
> We assume the following axioms:

0) Fedora strongly depends on well-motivated and non-frustrated
maintainers and open source developers. We want to increment
number of responsible maintainers who are able to use common
sense. Our mission is to keep maintainers happy otherwise we
will lost them and then we will lost users and our good position
in Linux community.

Our goal is to use technical arguments and don't introduce
non-technical discussions in our mailing lists.

> 1) Updates to stable that result in any reduction of functionality to
> the user are unacceptable.
>
> 2) It is impossible to ensure that functionality will not be reduced
> without sufficient testing.
>
> 3) Sufficient testing of software inherently requires manual
> intervention by more than one individual.

Always when I see that someone is trying to introduce a new rule I
have to ask myself ... why so large project like kernel is able to
successfully exist for 20 years without a huge collection of rules?

Karel

--
Karel Zak <kzak@redhat.com>
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-09-2010, 10:00 AM
H. Gumar
 
Default Proposed udpates policy change

Sounds pretty sensible.
We should also keep in mind that one size does not fit all. While core
and widely used packages should have a more conservative update path,
some packages could benefit from faster release. karma mechanism +
feedback integration in PK looks like a total win for the latter.

Promoting the use of fedora-easy-karma among contributors (kudos to
Till Maas !) would be more effective than a half baked proposition
(hasty decisions are often bad ones).

2010/3/9 Rahul Sundaram <metherid@gmail.com>:
>
> I don't see how we expect that for all packages to get enough karma and
> while some of them can get feedback within the current infrastructure
> and considering the wide variety of packages (niche libraries for
> example) *it is naive to believe that we are going to accomplish and
> hence my counter points are:
>
> * *We need improvements in our infrastructure (easy karma is one avenue
> but Pacagekit integration and other ways to get users to provide input
> needs to be in place first)
> * *We need to consider what we need as exceptions to this rule or more
> sensibly enforce this rule only in crit path packages initially
> * *If a time limit is considered as a alternative we need to document
> ways to escalate and file a exception if necessary and again I would
> recommend only consider enforcing it for crit packages first
>
> As it current stands I am against this proposal
>
> Rahul
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-09-2010, 10:34 AM
Ewan Mac Mahon
 
Default Proposed udpates policy change

On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 11:12:11PM +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 11:21:45PM +0100, Sven Lankes wrote:
> >
> > If Fesco is aiming at getting rid of all the pesky packagers maintaining low
> > profile packages: You're well on your way.
>
> So, no, that's not the intent and it's realised that this is a problem.
> We need to work on making it easier for users to see that there are
> available testing updates and give feedback on them. This is clearly
> going to take a while, and there'd undoubtedly going to be some
> difficulty in getting updates for more niche packages through as a
> result.

It seems to me that the problem is a lack of testing, not irresponsible
maintainers that don't care about testing. If the testing problem can be
solved to the point that a policy like this could work without
completely freezing updates for low profile packages then I think
maintainers would be keen to have the testing, and you won't need the
policy to force the issue.

Ewan
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-09-2010, 11:48 AM
Matěj Cepl
 
Default Proposed udpates policy change

Dne 8.3.2010 22:59, Matthew Garrett napsal(a):
> 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.

I usually decrease required karma to +-1, but I have never experienced
package pushed to stable because of karma. Does it mean that I shouldn't
bother to fix bugs in the released distros, because new release will
newer get out of updates-testing?

Please clarify.

Thank you,

Matěj

--
http://www.ceplovi.cz/matej/, Jabber: mcepl<at>ceplovi.cz
GPG Finger: 89EF 4BC6 288A BF43 1BAB 25C3 E09F EF25 D964 84AC

He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp-posts... for
support, rather than illumination.
-- Andrew Lang
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-09-2010, 11:48 AM
Matěj Cepl
 
Default Proposed udpates policy change

Dne 8.3.2010 22:59, Matthew Garrett napsal(a):
> 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.

I usually decrease required karma to +-1, but I have never experienced
package pushed to stable because of karma. Does it mean that I shouldn't
bother to fix bugs in the released distros, because new release will
newer get out of updates-testing?

Please clarify.

Thank you,

Matěj

--
http://www.ceplovi.cz/matej/, Jabber: mcepl<at>ceplovi.cz
GPG Finger: 89EF 4BC6 288A BF43 1BAB 25C3 E09F EF25 D964 84AC

He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp-posts... for
support, rather than illumination.
-- Andrew Lang

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-09-2010, 11:55 AM
Seth Vidal
 
Default Proposed udpates policy change

On Tue, 9 Mar 2010, Karel Zak wrote:

>
> Always when I see that someone is trying to introduce a new rule I
> have to ask myself ... why so large project like kernel is able to
> successfully exist for 20 years without a huge collection of rules?

the kernel has one rule which ends up working very well. The kernel has
the "its Linus' (and a few other people's) way or the highway".

Now, if you'd like to see fedora adopt that rule, I'd be curious to see
the results.

-sv

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-09-2010, 12:10 PM
Jaroslav Reznik
 
Default Proposed udpates policy change

On Tuesday 09 March 2010 13:55:53 Seth Vidal wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Mar 2010, Karel Zak wrote:
> > Always when I see that someone is trying to introduce a new rule I
> > have to ask myself ... why so large project like kernel is able to
> > successfully exist for 20 years without a huge collection of rules?
>
> the kernel has one rule which ends up working very well. The kernel has
> the "its Linus' (and a few other people's) way or the highway".
>
> Now, if you'd like to see fedora adopt that rule, I'd be curious to see
> the results.

Yes, we don't have Linus here ;-) But usually I like his decisions - mostly
strongly technical ones based on arguments = less politics.

Jaroslav

> -sv

--
Jaroslav Řezn*k <jreznik@redhat.com>
Software Engineer - Base Operating Systems Brno

Office: +420 532 294 275
Mobile: +420 731 455 332
Red Hat, Inc. http://cz.redhat.com/
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-09-2010, 12:20 PM
Mathieu Bridon
 
Default Proposed udpates policy change

On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 10:51, Joe Orton <jorton@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 09:59:29PM +0000, Matthew Garrett 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.
>
> This seems naive to me. *My experience is that there are few people
> willing to provide testing karma, even for relatively high-profile
> packages. *It took about three months to get as many people to submit
> positive testing results for an httpd F-11 update in updates-testing
> recently.

If the issues this update was solbing really bothered them, they would
have provided feedback earlier.

I maintain some niche packages that almost no one uses/no one would
provide karma for. But if I'm asked for a bugfix, and I do it, I want
the people requesting it to tell me that it indeed fixes the issue and
doesn't break anything else. Why would I bother if they don't care?


----------
Mathieu Bridon
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-09-2010, 12:32 PM
Joe Orton
 
Default Proposed udpates policy change

On Tue, Mar 09, 2010 at 02:20:20PM +0100, Mathieu Bridon wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 10:51, Joe Orton <jorton@redhat.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 09:59:29PM +0000, Matthew Garrett 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.
> >
> > This seems naive to me. *My experience is that there are few people
> > willing to provide testing karma, even for relatively high-profile
> > packages. *It took about three months to get as many people to submit
> > positive testing results for an httpd F-11 update in updates-testing
> > recently.
>
> If the issues this update was solbing really bothered them, they would
> have provided feedback earlier.

Hah, right. Back in the real world, most users expect free cake and
complain if they don't get it. I would not be optimistic about
resetting expectations there. For most updates I do, I end up doing the
testing myself and ignorning automated karma pushes.

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

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 02:40 PM.

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