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, 08:05 PM
Michael Schwendt
 
Default Updates proposal - alternative draft 1

On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 00:52:38 +0530, Rahul wrote:

> Non-critical path packages
>
> * Don't blindly push every upstream release as update

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_update_guidelines
plus
A packager who "blindly pushes every upstream release as update"
apparently has forgotten to do the home work, which involves
checking what the update has to offer.

If the packager has skimmed over source code diffs and has read
the ChangeLog file, it is no longer a "blindly pushed update".
The update may be a bug-fix release even if it is a new upstream
release. Do you want to disallow such updates, if there is no open ticket
in bugzilla for a problem that would be fixed by the update? (and
obviously, the packager could open an own ticket in bugzilla)

> * Preserve stability and avoid unexpected changes and push updates with
> enhancements only if the benefit is considered worth the risk of
> potential regressions

Again just a different wording of the existing Update Guidelines.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-09-2010, 08:10 PM
Rahul Sundaram
 
Default Updates proposal - alternative draft 1

On 03/10/2010 02:35 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>
> Again just a different wording of the existing Update Guidelines.
>

You left out the important parts which are about critical path packages.

Rahul

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-09-2010, 08:17 PM
Rahul Sundaram
 
Default Updates proposal - alternative draft 1

On 03/10/2010 02:47 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>
> On purpose. I didn't have any comments on them.
>

I assume then you don't have any criticism of the proposal since you can
just assume the second part as a pointer to

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_update_guidelines


Rahul
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-09-2010, 08:17 PM
Michael Schwendt
 
Default Updates proposal - alternative draft 1

On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 02:40:31 +0530, Rahul wrote:

> On 03/10/2010 02:35 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> >
> > Again just a different wording of the existing Update Guidelines.
> >
>
> You left out the important parts which are about critical path packages.

On purpose. I didn't have any comments on them.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-09-2010, 09:02 PM
Miloslav Trmač
 
Default Updates proposal - alternative draft 1

Hello,
Rahul Sundaram p*še v St 10. 03. 2010 v 00:52 +0530:
> For critical path packages
> (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Critical_Path_Packages) :

> * Must go through updates testing repository even for security fixes
> Rationale: Expedited security fixes have caused some serious regressions
> in the past (D-Bus, Bind, Thunderbird updates etc).
This breaks any attempt at embargos and coordinated security updates -
or, at the very least, includes rel-eng (how many people? who exactly?)
in the very small set of people that would otherwise have to know about
the embargoed update.
Mirek

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-09-2010, 09:14 PM
Rahul Sundaram
 
Default Updates proposal - alternative draft 1

On 03/10/2010 03:32 AM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
>
> This breaks any attempt at embargos and coordinated security updates -
> or, at the very least, includes rel-eng (how many people? who exactly?)
> in the very small set of people that would otherwise have to know about
> the embargoed update.
>

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ReleaseEngineering#Who_represents_what_to_Fedora_R elease_Engineering.3F


Rahul
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-09-2010, 09:23 PM
Michael Schwendt
 
Default Updates proposal - alternative draft 1

On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 02:47:45 +0530, Rahul wrote:

> On 03/10/2010 02:47 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> >
> > On purpose. I didn't have any comments on them.
> >
>
> I assume then you don't have any criticism of the proposal since you can
> just assume the second part as a pointer to
>
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_update_guidelines

Well, with regard to your "critical path packages" draft, "no criticism"
would be an exaggeration.

I would prefer to see something in action first. Proof of concept.
A demonstration of how it improves update quality. Everything could end
up as a farce due to lack of volunteers and/or lack of expertise. No
diligent testing done by humans, but just automated or semi-automated
tests done with tools. Or cursory "works for me" blanket approval of
updates, quickly submitted with a script to process a tiresome queue of
updates. With nobody taking responsibility for (1) the first annoying
problem that will slip through the cracks / (2) the first regression that
will be signed off nevertheless with excuses.

Other than that, I welcome top-down approaches. They are a much better
basis for discussion than those intimidating low-level proposals, where
various variables are inserted already and just wait to be filled in (such
as N weeks, N days, N karma points).

I'd like to see a rationale which mentions

- the technical constraints (if any), which require an update to sit in
updates-testing for a minimum time,
e.g. so special tools can examine updates-testing, if they can
not hook up in the process earlier,

- the resource constraints, which require an update to sit in
updates-testing for a minimum time,
e.g. so N monkeys get enough time to hammer on the queue actually,
considering the mirror delivery time, considering the time it may
take to test something painstakingly on a daily basis,

- the strategical/political constraints,
e.g. the analysis of whether what we deliver is what we intend to deliver,
a precise summary of whether and where Fedora Updates have failed in a
way that requires policy changes [and confinement] for all/many updates.

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-09-2010, 09:45 PM
Rahul Sundaram
 
Default Updates proposal - alternative draft 1

On 03/10/2010 03:53 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>
> I would prefer to see something in action first. Proof of concept.
> A demonstration of how it improves update quality.
>

That's exactly why my proposal calls for it to be enforced on critical
path packages first. I don't specify point details because it then
turns into a discussion about dissecting examples instead of the broader
idea and the implementation details can always be adjusted and will
likely need to be adjusted over time. We can't predict everything in
advance. If you disagree with the fundamental premise that any change
is needed at all, then you can directly say so. If you have a
alternative proposal, feel free to post it.

Rahul
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-10-2010, 04:22 PM
Bruno Wolff III
 
Default Updates proposal - alternative draft 1

On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 01:20:21 +0530,
Rahul Sundaram <metherid@gmail.com> wrote:
> As opposed to fake security threats? In the case of the kernel, if the
> new kernel update we rush through without passing via updates-testing
> repo doesn't boot you can always boot back into an older kernel but

We can do that, but not everyone can. Remember the default timeout for
grub is now 0 seconds, so I expect a significant number of our users are
not going to know what to do if a kernel update doesn't work for them.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-10-2010, 04:26 PM
Bruno Wolff III
 
Default Updates proposal - alternative draft 1

On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 00:52:38 +0530,
Rahul Sundaram <metherid@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Let me know what you think

This should be split into two policy proposals.

One should cover QA related processes for pushing updates.

The second should cover expectations on what kinds of updates packagers
should be pushing to various releases.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 11:12 AM.

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