On 18 March 2010 00:19, Branched Report wrote:
> Compose started at Wed Mar 17 09:15:24 UTC 2010
>
> * * * *linphone-2.1.1-4.fc12.i686 requires libortp.so.7

Thanks Quentin for looking into this and Jesse for importing. I have
filled up bodhi update and requested for testing.

--
Rakesh Pandit
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Rakesh
freedom, friends, features, first
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Am Donnerstag, den 18.03.2010, 23:30 +0530 schrieb Rakesh Pandit:
> On 18 March 2010 00:19, Branched Report wrote:
> > Compose started at Wed Mar 17 09:15:24 UTC 2010
> >
> > linphone-2.1.1-4.fc12.i686 requires libortp.so.7
>
> Thanks Quentin for looking into this and Jesse for importing. I have
> filled up bodhi update and requested for testing.

Why testing?

A "maybe-broken update" is better than a "non-working programm" isn't
it?

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

On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 1:25 PM, Thomas Spura
<spurath@students.uni-mainz.de> wrote:
>
> Why testing?
>
> A "maybe-broken update" is better than a "non-working programm" isn't
> it?

Because there are a significant number of people that will scream
bloody murder if people push packages directly to stable without
having the package spend at least a little time in testing, no matter
what the reason. There have been enough problems with seemingly
"safe" updates that go directly to stable that I have a hard time
disagreeing with them.

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

On Fri, 2010-03-19 at 13:34 -0500, Jeffrey Ollie wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 1:25 PM, Thomas Spura
> <spurath@students.uni-mainz.de> wrote:
> >
> > Why testing?
> >
> > A "maybe-broken update" is better than a "non-working programm" isn't
> > it?
>
> Because there are a significant number of people that will scream
> bloody murder if people push packages directly to stable without
> having the package spend at least a little time in testing, no matter
> what the reason. There have been enough problems with seemingly
> "safe" updates that go directly to stable that I have a hard time
> disagreeing with them.

Besides, the principle is not in fact correct. Just for instance, an
installable package which causes massive data corruption is not better
than an uninstallable package...

Not saying that's the case here, just pointing out that 'it's
uninstallable' is not the worst possible flaw a package can have.
--
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

Till Maas wrote:
> It would be enough to only push the update that got enough testing and
> all updates in newer releases to keep the upgrade path.

Yes. Pushing stuff to older releases later does not break upgrade paths, it
just annoys and confuses folks. Pushing stuff to older releases first is
what's really broken and what happened here.

Kevin Kofler

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

Jesse Keating wrote:
> We do separate testing per release, because each release is different.
> Different library sets, different kernels, glibc, some different desktop
> environments, etc... Assuming that testing on one release means that
> it'll work on other releases is grossly irresponsible.

In practice it's almost always true, with really extremely rare exceptions,
which are not worth headaches such as broken upgrade paths.

Kevin Kofler

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

Till Maas wrote:
> These requirements render the karma automatism useless for all branches
> except F13, because the fedora-packager package in F12 was iirc pushed
> automatically after it received enough testing. If this implies, that
> that the package should also be pushed in F13, then this should happen
> automatically, too. Automatic default behaviour that leads to failure
> should not exist.

Karma automatism is completely broken and useless, how's that news?

It's quite sad that the rest of FESCo wants to rely on such brokenness even
more in the future (with me being the only one who refused to vote for such
a broken plan which just smells of failure). Numeric karma should be
abolished entirely, not made a requirement for anything.

Kevin Kofler

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

Thomas Spura wrote:
> Why testing?
>
> A "maybe-broken update" is better than a "non-working programm" isn't
> it?

+1, broken dependency fixes should go stable ASAP.

Kevin Kofler

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

On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 07:38:43AM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Till Maas wrote:
> > These requirements render the karma automatism useless for all branches
> > except F13, because the fedora-packager package in F12 was iirc pushed
> > automatically after it received enough testing. If this implies, that
> > that the package should also be pushed in F13, then this should happen
> > automatically, too. Automatic default behaviour that leads to failure
> > should not exist.
>
> Karma automatism is completely broken and useless, how's that news?

If this is common knowledge, why does it still exist?

> It's quite sad that the rest of FESCo wants to rely on such brokenness even
> more in the future (with me being the only one who refused to vote for such
> a broken plan which just smells of failure). Numeric karma should be
> abolished entirely, not made a requirement for anything.

IMHO numeric karma is better than nothing, but I agree that it can be
improved a lot.

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

Till Maas wrote:
> If this is common knowledge, why does it still exist?

The usual answer: because some highly influential people are convinced of
its greatness and won't listen to reason. :-(

Kevin Kofler

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