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 04-10-2010, 12:05 AM
Matt McCutchen
 
Default Bodhi allows resubmitting an update with different packages?!

On Fri, 2010-04-09 at 16:26 -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> That would be nice. Though in the end, as long as the update has not
> reached stable, is editing a testing update to fix regressions really
> that big of a deal...

It confuses the people who put in the effort to test your packages. I
updated to NetworkManager-0.8.0-4.git20100325.fc12.x86_64 and hit bugs
576925 and 578141. I wanted to leave negative feedback on the update,
but I could not find one for that package version. It took me a minute
to realize that you had edited the update to contain newer packages.
Edits also break the links that the update system posts on Bugzilla,
such as the ones here:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=573510#c2

How hard is it to use Bodhi properly?

--
Matt

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 04-10-2010, 12:09 AM
Matt McCutchen
 
Default Bodhi allows resubmitting an update with different packages?!

On Fri, 2010-04-09 at 19:57 -0400, Matt McCutchen wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-04-09 at 15:32 -0800, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
> > When someone is publishing updates and putting them into testing
> > specifically to address known bugs... and they get the fix wrong in
> > some way... I think its perfectly acceptable to reuse the same update
> > notice for the testing packages in order to do a series of such test
> > packages...letting intermediate test packages expire out of existence.
> >
> > You can make the same argument about confusion in the bugzilla
> > comments to. Unless people take the time to state which version they
> > are using in every comment if there are several intermediate attempts
> > to fix a bug handed out to users..whether it be via bodhi or even just
> > koji builds..bug reports get harder to follow...unless people state
> > which versions they are testing. And I certainly wouldn't expect
> > people to refile a new bug report each time a testing package is spun
> > up just to keep the flow of commentary clear as to which version
> > everyone was referring to when they were providing feedback.
>
> The comparison to bugs is not valid. A bug is the same bug until it is
> fixed. An update consisting of different packages is a different
> update.

Better comparison: Bugzilla does not allow the content of an attachment
to be edited once it is submitted. Instead, people submit a new
attachment and obsolete the old one.

--
Matt

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 04-10-2010, 12:10 AM
Jeff Spaleta
 
Default Bodhi allows resubmitting an update with different packages?!

On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 3:57 PM, Matt McCutchen <matt@mattmccutchen.net> wrote:
> The comparison to bugs is not valid. *A bug is the same bug until it is
> fixed. *An update consisting of different packages is a different
> update.

What? We don't tag testing-updates with an ID. Testing packages...are
implicitly in flux...there's no intention to provide an audit trail
via a mechanism like our ID nomenclature that tags a collection of
packages as an identifiable update when the packages are in testing.

I think your overly narrowing the flexibility inherent in the testing
process with your attempt to define a testing updating they way you
just did.

-jef
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 04-10-2010, 12:12 AM
Jeff Spaleta
 
Default Bodhi allows resubmitting an update with different packages?!

On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 4:05 PM, Matt McCutchen <matt@mattmccutchen.net> wrote:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=573510#c2
>
> How hard is it to use Bodhi properly?

And then at the bottom of the bug report... there's newer
packages...and newer links.

There's no value in commenting on testing packages that are already
superceded by newer testing packages.

-jef
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 04-10-2010, 12:19 AM
Jeff Spaleta
 
Default Bodhi allows resubmitting an update with different packages?!

On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 4:05 PM, Matt McCutchen <matt@mattmccutchen.net> wrote:
> It confuses the people who put in the effort to test your packages. *I
> updated to NetworkManager-0.8.0-4.git20100325.fc12.x86_64 and hit bugs
> 576925 and 578141. *I wanted to leave negative feedback on the update,
> but I could not find one for that package version.

See... that's where I would have stopped and asked myself the following:

Self, why can't a find this package in bodhi.... it must be obsoleted
by a newer version. Hey let me search via the web interface and
see...yes..yes it was. I'll give it a day and let my mirrors sync up
so I can get the latest _test_ update so I can provide feedback that
will be useful. Good thinking self, you've earned a beer and a
baconiase infused devilled egg.


Once a testing package is obsoleted by newer testing packages, why do
we need to keep those packages in bodhi's interface? Why do we need to
duplicate this at all? If you can't find a package in bodhi any longer
that means its no longer the latest available update and its no longer
relevant to the discussion.

-jef
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 04-10-2010, 12:20 AM
Matt McCutchen
 
Default Bodhi allows resubmitting an update with different packages?!

On Fri, 2010-04-09 at 16:10 -0800, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 3:57 PM, Matt McCutchen <matt@mattmccutchen.net> wrote:
> > The comparison to bugs is not valid. A bug is the same bug until it is
> > fixed. An update consisting of different packages is a different
> > update.
>
> What? We don't tag testing-updates with an ID.

There's another possible explanation for that policy: users who don't
participate in testing know that any update with an ID went to stable
and won't be distracted by references to IDs of testing updates in
various forums. But actually, I would prefer giving every update an ID.

> Testing packages...are
> implicitly in flux...there's no intention to provide an audit trail
> via a mechanism like our ID nomenclature that tags a collection of
> packages as an identifiable update when the packages are in testing.

> I think your overly narrowing the flexibility inherent in the testing
> process with your attempt to define a testing updating they way you
> just did.

Why is this "flexibility" a good thing? All it does is confuse testers
like me.

--
Matt

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 04-10-2010, 12:21 AM
Jeff Spaleta
 
Default Bodhi allows resubmitting an update with different packages?!

On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 4:09 PM, Matt McCutchen <matt@mattmccutchen.net> wrote:
> Better comparison: Bugzilla does not allow the content of an attachment
> to be edited once it is submitted. *Instead, people submit a new
> attachment and obsolete the old one.

Yes and koji keeps builds around to even when they aren't in a
published tree. Doesn't make that behavior appropriate for what bodhi
is trying to accomplish.

-jef
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 04-10-2010, 12:31 AM
Jeff Spaleta
 
Default Bodhi allows resubmitting an update with different packages?!

On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 4:20 PM, Matt McCutchen <matt@mattmccutchen.net> wrote:
> There's another possible explanation for that policy: users who don't
> participate in testing know that any update with an ID went to stable
> and won't be distracted by references to IDs of testing updates in
> various forums. *But actually, I would prefer giving every update an ID.

Clearly you would. And you'd burn through the ID numbering scheme with
no real auditting benefit.

I'll repeat. If a testing package is missing in bodhi...it means its
obsoleted by a newer one.
Bodhi has a search interface which will let you find the newer ones.
The bugzilla tickets have the reference to the newer ones.

Keeping the obsoleted packages in the bodhi interface would only
encourage you to add comments that are no longer relevant..no longer
useful to the maintainer. Yes its unfortunate that you installed an
outdated testing package. It happens...because testing revisions can
be quite fast paced when maintainers are on the ball and your local
mirror might not sync as fast as others so you are a step or three
behind the current conversation.

And in this case, even if you found the package listing you were
looking for...any comment you would have added...any karma you would
have added..would just be wasted effort because the relevant
conversation had moved on to the newer package. And we certainly
don't want you to waste even more effort adding karma or a comment on
an obsoleted testing package. We want you using and commenting on the
testing packages that are most current.

-jef
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 04-10-2010, 12:44 AM
Matt McCutchen
 
Default Bodhi allows resubmitting an update with different packages?!

On Fri, 2010-04-09 at 16:31 -0800, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
> I'll repeat. If a testing package is missing in bodhi...it means its
> obsoleted by a newer one.

This surprised me. I assumed updates were immutable and did not find
any suggestion to the contrary until today.

> Bodhi has a search interface which will let you find the newer ones.
> The bugzilla tickets have the reference to the newer ones.
>
> Keeping the obsoleted packages in the bodhi interface would only
> encourage you to add comments that are no longer relevant..no longer
> useful to the maintainer. Yes its unfortunate that you installed an
> outdated testing package. It happens...because testing revisions can
> be quite fast paced when maintainers are on the ball and your local
> mirror might not sync as fast as others so you are a step or three
> behind the current conversation.
>
> And in this case, even if you found the package listing you were
> looking for...any comment you would have added...any karma you would
> have added..would just be wasted effort because the relevant
> conversation had moved on to the newer package. And we certainly
> don't want you to waste even more effort adding karma or a comment on
> an obsoleted testing package. We want you using and commenting on the
> testing packages that are most current.

I understand that! Once I saw that my package was obsolete, I did not
comment about the bugs.

As you have said, feedback on obsolete packages is irrelevant. So it is
confusing to see it on the page for the new update. I have to remember
to start reading after the last "This update has been submitted". If
the feedback log would be cleared upon resubmission, then the outcome
would be indistinguishable from my proposal.

--
Matt

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 04-10-2010, 12:51 AM
Matt McCutchen
 
Default Bodhi allows resubmitting an update with different packages?!

On Fri, 2010-04-09 at 16:19 -0800, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
> Once a testing package is obsoleted by newer testing packages, why do
> we need to keep those packages in bodhi's interface?

To keep the contents of bodhi and the repository consistent at all times
(subject to mirroring). As soon as the obsolete packages are unpushed
from the repository, I have no objection to the update disappearing from
bodhi. But this is really a separate issue from my main complaint,
which was about old feedback appearing on the update page.

--
Matt

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

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 05:18 AM.

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