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 03-10-2010, 08:11 PM
Gilboa Davara
 
Default Proposed udpates policy change

On Mon, 2010-03-08 at 23:21 +0100, Sven Lankes 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.
>
> If Fesco is aiming at getting rid of all the pesky packagers maintaining low
> profile packages: You're well on your way.

I usually stay away from mega-threads, but well put!

I doubt that even major bug fixes in any of my (small) packages, ever
got more than 1-2 karma votes. Many got zero - not even a vote by the
original bug report owner!

Why am I getting punished because some package didn't get enough testing
(due to the low visibility of update-testing?) before it was pushed into
-updates and caused breakage?

Either we (package maintainers) are qualified to make sane decisions
about our package or we are not. I don't really see a middle ground
here.

I wonder if it's not high time to return the distinction between core
and extra functionality.

- Gilboa

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-10-2010, 08:21 PM
Adam Williamson
 
Default Proposed udpates policy change

On Wed, 2010-03-10 at 23:11 +0200, Gilboa Davara wrote:

> Either we (package maintainers) are qualified to make sane decisions
> about our package or we are not. I don't really see a middle ground
> here.

Being qualified to do something does not mean that one always does it
perfectly. Almost everyone's qualified to drive, yet road traffic
accidents happen _all the time_. The people who built the LHC were no
doubt qualified to do yet, yet it turns out to be a bit broken. You can
pull examples from literally every sphere of human experience.

People make mistakes - even qualified people, even super-proficient
people who make far fewer mistakes than *most* people. This is why we do
testing.

You're behind the debate, in any case; Matthew's proposal was not
accepted by FESCo at the meeting. No proposal was fully accepted, but
FESCo asked everyone to go and work from Bill Nottingham's proposal
(which, if you look at it, is far more moderate) for further review next
week. But I thought it was important to make the general point. Being
qualified to do something does not mean that you will always do it
perfectly.
--
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 03-10-2010, 08:56 PM
Gilboa Davara
 
Default Proposed udpates policy change

On Wed, 2010-03-10 at 13:21 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-03-10 at 23:11 +0200, Gilboa Davara wrote:
>
> > Either we (package maintainers) are qualified to make sane decisions
> > about our package or we are not. I don't really see a middle ground
> > here.
>
> Being qualified to do something does not mean that one always does it
> perfectly. Almost everyone's qualified to drive, yet road traffic
> accidents happen _all the time_. The people who built the LHC were no
> doubt qualified to do yet, yet it turns out to be a bit broken. You can
> pull examples from literally every sphere of human experience.
>
> People make mistakes - even qualified people, even super-proficient
> people who make far fewer mistakes than *most* people. This is why we do
> testing.

> You're behind the debate, in any case; Matthew's proposal was not
> accepted by FESCo at the meeting. No proposal was fully accepted, but
> FESCo asked everyone to go and work from Bill Nottingham's proposal
> (which, if you look at it, is far more moderate) for further review next
> week. But I thought it was important to make the general point. Being
> qualified to do something does not mean that you will always do it
> perfectly.

I just finished reading the fixed proposal (Or actually, I just finished
reading the full thread). Thanks for the head's up.

- Gilboa



--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-10-2010, 09:14 PM
mike cloaked
 
Default Proposed udpates policy change

On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 9:11 PM, Gilboa Davara <gilboad@gmail.com> wrote:

>> If Fesco is aiming at getting rid of all the pesky packagers maintaining low
>> profile packages: You're well on your way.
>
> I usually stay away from mega-threads, but well put!
>
> I doubt that even major bug fixes in any of my (small) packages, ever
> got more than 1-2 karma votes. Many got zero - not even a vote by the
> original bug report owner!
>
> Why am I getting punished because some package didn't get enough testing
> (due to the low visibility of update-testing?) before it was pushed into
> -updates and caused breakage?
>
> Either we (package maintainers) are qualified to make sane decisions
> about our package or we are not. I don't really see a middle ground
> here.

I thought I would add a few thoughts to this now long running thread.

Firstly I have been a long standing - since Fedora Core 1 - user of
Fedora, and in general Fedora Linux has served me well through many
generations of new installs, across not only my own machines but also
those of relatives/friends whom I have been trusted to convert to sole
Linux use, up till now very successfully.

There have been large changes in recent times (KDE 3.5->4, major
changes to graphics drivers including open source Radeon/nouveau,
major boot process updates, KMS, pulseaudio etc etc). We have survived
all of those largely unscathed. I would hope that the machines that I
run on behalf of other users will continue to serve them well through
yum updates whilst in normal production service. I am lucky that I
can run my main machines on a released and current version of Fedora
that I expect will not fail in a catastrophic way after normal updates
- but I do have available other non-critical machines on which I can
run alpha or beta ( or even rawhide occasionally) versions, or run
current releases but be prepared to take the risk of running
unreleased packages from koji before they even hit bodhi, and before
they reach testing repos. If these machines suffer in a major way it
is not a disaster and I can re-install at worst - but the main
production machines remain up and running (until recently that is!) I
am lucky since I can usually find what fix is needed and sort it out.
However Aunt Bessie can't and relies on people like me to fix their
machines when their email stops working and a message appears on their
screen saying something that is incomprehensible to her!

Fine if it is only Aunt Bessie that I have to fix - but if Uncle Bob,
Grandma Celine, Grandad David, and 25 other assorted friends, cousins
and relatives all find their email stops one morning then I am going
to be unable to do my dayjob if I spend all my time getting their
machines all fixed because an update broke their production systems.
At that level I would say that the update that caused that level of
failure is no longer acceptable as a released update. I know that we
are all human, and that occasionally we will all make a mistake (I do
too!) but there is a threshold beyond which a failure is really not
acceptable and once crossed there is a chance that users and testers
will be alienated and move elsewhere. In that event I think the
responsible person(s) should gracefully accept that a threshold has
been crossed and learn from flack that ensues, even that has arisen
from an upstream change that they were largely unaware would have
serious consequences.

Remember also that there are users who only have a single machine and
if that breaks then it is much harder for him/her to sort out the
problem if there is a loss of email functionality and/or loss of dns
(remember the dnssec issue) leading to loss of network connectivity
since getting the information required to fix it will need access to
the net - so critical packages do need to be identified and tested at
a more intense level than less critical packages. The kernel is also
clearly critical and when dependencies on X and graphics drivers could
break machines then that needs special consideration also.

In general packages and their maintainers do a good job and we get
regular excellent updated packages almost daily - what a service! -
users of other alternatives to linux certainly don't get that level of
provision or anything like it!

I know that there has been a lot of soul searching and a genuine
attempt to move forward - let's all keep level headed and try to be
constructive rather than destructive in trying to make for a better
Fedora. We have support that is truly up to date - let's keep it that
way, but also avoid really serious breakage on production releases.

--
mike c
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-10-2010, 09:44 PM
Ewan Mac Mahon
 
Default Proposed udpates policy change

On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 01:21:45PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-03-10 at 23:11 +0200, Gilboa Davara wrote:
>
> > Either we (package maintainers) are qualified to make sane decisions
> > about our package or we are not. I don't really see a middle ground
> > here.
>
> Being qualified to do something does not mean that one always does it
> perfectly. Almost everyone's qualified to drive, yet road traffic
> accidents happen _all the time_. The people who built the LHC were no
> doubt qualified to do yet, yet it turns out to be a bit broken.

The LHC is an interesting analogy; it certainly has problems that can be
picked out with 20:20 hindsight, but there was no way anyone could have
changed the processes in advance that would prevented them coming up in
the first place. When you're trying to build something complicated and
push the boundaries of what's been done before then mistakes are
inevitable. For all its faults the LHC is absolutely the best thing of
its type on the planet. Fear of making mistakes shouldn't stop us
building things like the LHC, and it shouldn't stop us building things
like Fedora either.

We already know how to build things that are safe, boring, and have been
done before. Someone's got to build the cool new stuff.

Ewan
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-10-2010, 09:59 PM
Adam Williamson
 
Default Proposed udpates policy change

On Wed, 2010-03-10 at 22:44 +0000, Ewan Mac Mahon wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 01:21:45PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Wed, 2010-03-10 at 23:11 +0200, Gilboa Davara wrote:
> >
> > > Either we (package maintainers) are qualified to make sane decisions
> > > about our package or we are not. I don't really see a middle ground
> > > here.
> >
> > Being qualified to do something does not mean that one always does it
> > perfectly. Almost everyone's qualified to drive, yet road traffic
> > accidents happen _all the time_. The people who built the LHC were no
> > doubt qualified to do yet, yet it turns out to be a bit broken.
>
> The LHC is an interesting analogy; it certainly has problems that can be
> picked out with 20:20 hindsight, but there was no way anyone could have
> changed the processes in advance that would prevented them coming up in
> the first place.

This is certainly true. However, if they'd decided to build the whole
thing based on their first calculations, measuring once and cutting
once, and without doing any checking to make sure they were building
everything in a straight line, it probably would've gone even worse =)

you're right it was a bad example to pick, though, without further
explanation.
--
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 03-10-2010, 10:16 PM
Al Dunsmuir
 
Default Proposed udpates policy change

On Wednesday, March 10, 2010, 5:59:20 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
>>On Wed, 2010-03-10 at 22:44 +0000, Ewan Mac Mahon wrote:
>> The LHC is an interesting analogy; it certainly has problems that can be
>> picked out with 20:20 hindsight, but there was no way anyone could have
>> changed the processes in advance that would prevented them coming up in
>> the first place.

> This is certainly true. However, if they'd decided to build the whole
> thing based on their first calculations, measuring once and cutting
> once, and without doing any checking to make sure they were building
> everything in a straight line, it probably would've gone even worse =)

> you're right it was a bad example to pick, though, without further
> explanation.
> --
> Adam Williamson

Um... Adam, on that straight line thing. Last time I checked, they
were trying to make a very large perfect circle. **GRIN**

Some days Murphy is the only winner, no matter what we do!


--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-10-2010, 10:40 PM
Adam Williamson
 
Default Proposed udpates policy change

On Wed, 2010-03-10 at 18:16 -0500, Al Dunsmuir wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 10, 2010, 5:59:20 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> >>On Wed, 2010-03-10 at 22:44 +0000, Ewan Mac Mahon wrote:
> >> The LHC is an interesting analogy; it certainly has problems that can be
> >> picked out with 20:20 hindsight, but there was no way anyone could have
> >> changed the processes in advance that would prevented them coming up in
> >> the first place.
>
> > This is certainly true. However, if they'd decided to build the whole
> > thing based on their first calculations, measuring once and cutting
> > once, and without doing any checking to make sure they were building
> > everything in a straight line, it probably would've gone even worse =)
>
> > you're right it was a bad example to pick, though, without further
> > explanation.
> > --
> > Adam Williamson
>
> Um... Adam, on that straight line thing. Last time I checked, they
> were trying to make a very large perfect circle. **GRIN**
>
> Some days Murphy is the only winner, no matter what we do!

Man, but you guys like to pick nits. =)
--
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
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 08:16 PM.

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