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 06-29-2010, 10:37 PM
Luke Macken
 
Default Bodhi 0.7.5 release

Hi,

I just pushed a version 0.7.5 of bodhi into production. This release
contains the following notable changes:

proventesters & strict critical path update handling
----------------------------------------------------

Critical path package[0] updates now require positive karma from two
proventesters[1], and a single +1 from one other community member.

You can get a list of critical path updates using the bodhi web interface:

https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/critpath?release=F13untested=True

You can optionally pass in a specific 'release' or an 'untested' flag,
which will return a list of critical path updates that have yet to be
approved. I have not added these links to the main interface yet,
because at the moment they are fairly expensive calls. This will be
addressed in an upcoming release.

The latest command-line client also supports these options as well:

$ bodhi --critpath --untested --release F13

Auto-obsoletion re-enabled
--------------------------

I re-enabled the auto-obsoletion code in bodhi. This means that new
updates will automatically obsolete older testing updates containing the
same packages. The new update will also inherit all of the old updates
bugs and notes. This code had been disabled for a while now, due to
some nasty edge cases, but those have since been resolved.

If you experience any problems, please file tickets here:

https://fedorahosted.org/bodhi/newticket

Thanks,

luke

[0]: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Critical_Path_Packages
[1]: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/JoinProvenTesters
_______________________________________________
devel-announce mailing list
devel-announce@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel-announce
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 06-29-2010, 10:49 PM
Luke Macken
 
Default Bodhi 0.7.5 release

On 06/29/2010 06:37 PM, Luke Macken wrote:
> You can get a list of critical path updates using the bodhi web interface:
>
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/critpath?release=F13untested=True

Oops, broken link. Sorry about that.

https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/critpath?release=F13&untested=True
_______________________________________________
devel-announce mailing list
devel-announce@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel-announce
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 06-30-2010, 03:35 PM
Tom Lane
 
Default Bodhi 0.7.5 release

Luke Macken <lmacken@redhat.com> writes:
> Critical path package[0] updates now require positive karma from two
> proventesters[1], and a single +1 from one other community member.

Even for security updates? My experience says that this requirement
will prevent me from *ever* pushing updates. Case in point: libtiff,
which is a critpath package, has been in testing with a significant
security update for a week now. Its karma is still zero. When I get
the "old package" warning in another week, I am going to push it stable
... and if bodhi won't let me, I am going to come looking for a neck to
wring.

The proposed policy might be workable if we had a surplus of
proventester manpower available, but we obviously have not got that.

I would suggest a timeout: once the package has been in testing for two
weeks, the maintainer may push it stable regardless of whether
proventesters have fallen down on the job. Or if you really think
maintainers of critpath packages cannot be trusted to make these
decisions, I would be willing to accept *negative* karma from more than
one proventester as being an override. But it is utterly unacceptable
for inaction to represent a veto.

regards, tom lane
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 06-30-2010, 04:10 PM
Michael Cronenworth
 
Default Bodhi 0.7.5 release

Tom Lane wrote:
> Even for security updates? My experience says that this requirement
> will prevent me from*ever* pushing updates. Case in point: libtiff,
> which is a critpath package, has been in testing with a significant
> security update for a week now. Its karma is still zero. When I get
> the "old package" warning in another week, I am going to push it stable
> ... and if bodhi won't let me, I am going to come looking for a neck to
> wring.
>
> The proposed policy might be workable if we had a surplus of
> proventester manpower available, but we obviously have not got that.

If you follow the test list, there are many new proventester applications.

>
> I would suggest a timeout: once the package has been in testing for two
> weeks, the maintainer may push it stable regardless of whether
> proventesters have fallen down on the job. Or if you really think
> maintainers of critpath packages cannot be trusted to make these
> decisions, I would be willing to accept*negative* karma from more than
> one proventester as being an override. But it is utterly unacceptable
> for inaction to represent a veto.

Time isn't the issue. It's man power. Updates that stay in testing for
months with no one looking at them and then get pushed to stable have
broken things before.

Should the bodhi whine mail be CC'd to the test mailing list in a
digest-type mail like the updates-testing pushes? Then all proventesters
(and non-proventesters) are informed that there is a critpath pkg that
is needing some TLC?
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 06-30-2010, 04:18 PM
Adam Williamson
 
Default Bodhi 0.7.5 release

On Wed, 2010-06-30 at 11:35 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Luke Macken <lmacken@redhat.com> writes:
> > Critical path package[0] updates now require positive karma from two
> > proventesters[1], and a single +1 from one other community member.
>
> Even for security updates? My experience says that this requirement
> will prevent me from *ever* pushing updates. Case in point: libtiff,
> which is a critpath package, has been in testing with a significant
> security update for a week now. Its karma is still zero.

We have not been doing proventesters testing since F13 release, because
there has been no need for it. Additionally, because the critpath karma
requirement has been disabled, there has been no convenient mechanism
for finding critpath updates. Now both of these have changed; QA
activated the proventesters yesterday, and Bodhi now has several ways to
find critpath packages (and fedora-easy-karma hopefully soon will). All
of this should result in rather more karma arriving.

> The proposed policy might be workable if we had a surplus of
> proventester manpower available, but we obviously have not got that.

See above, you cannot judge this on current experience.
--
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 06-30-2010, 04:31 PM
Ralf Corsepius
 
Default Bodhi 0.7.5 release

On 06/30/2010 06:18 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-06-30 at 11:35 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:

>> The proposed policy might be workable if we had a surplus of
>> proventester manpower available, but we obviously have not got that.
And you think re-allocating the already scarce manpower to this process
will help?
I am having very strong doubts on this.


--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 06-30-2010, 04:32 PM
Josh Boyer
 
Default Bodhi 0.7.5 release

On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 11:35:17AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>Luke Macken <lmacken@redhat.com> writes:
>> Critical path package[0] updates now require positive karma from two
>> proventesters[1], and a single +1 from one other community member.
>
>Even for security updates? My experience says that this requirement
>will prevent me from *ever* pushing updates. Case in point: libtiff,
>which is a critpath package, has been in testing with a significant
>security update for a week now. Its karma is still zero. When I get
>the "old package" warning in another week, I am going to push it stable
>... and if bodhi won't let me, I am going to come looking for a neck to
>wring.

Refrain from making threats of bodily harm on this list. It is not warranted
or wanted.

josh
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 06-30-2010, 04:34 PM
Jesse Keating
 
Default Bodhi 0.7.5 release

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 6/30/10 9:31 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 06/30/2010 06:18 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
>> On Wed, 2010-06-30 at 11:35 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>
>>> The proposed policy might be workable if we had a surplus of
>>> proventester manpower available, but we obviously have not got that.
> And you think re-allocating the already scarce manpower to this process
> will help?
> I am having very strong doubts on this.
>
>
One of the big reasons the manpower was "scarce" is we did not have a
proper system to locate, train, and promote new people into this
"manpower". The QA team has made great strides into fixing that and we
do now have a process in place, and a good stream of incoming people
willing to donate some time and effort to help the project. We are not
just "hoping" that people will show up and test, we're actively building
a community of people who will be dedicated to testing these things.

- --
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- Freedom˛ is a feature!
identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAkwrcjIACgkQ4v2HLvE71NVvUQCfbNY/aL9u3OVG+hV32Cki4R/7
2QQAoMHiq6MwEV2p2HMRsZC9Fjs30Beo
=r6aw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 06-30-2010, 04:43 PM
Will Woods
 
Default Bodhi 0.7.5 release

On Wed, 2010-06-30 at 11:35 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> I would be willing to accept *negative* karma from more than
> one proventester as being an override. But it is utterly unacceptable
> for inaction to represent a veto.

I would argue that it's utterly unacceptable for untested code to be
pushed to users.

Is it really so hard for you to find someone to test the thing? If so,
maybe you could use the assistance of a co-maintainer?

-w

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 06-30-2010, 05:48 PM
Ralf Corsepius
 
Default Bodhi 0.7.5 release

On 06/30/2010 06:34 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 6/30/10 9:31 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>> On 06/30/2010 06:18 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2010-06-30 at 11:35 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>>
>>>> The proposed policy might be workable if we had a surplus of
>>>> proventester manpower available, but we obviously have not got that.
>> And you think re-allocating the already scarce manpower to this process
>> will help?
>> I am having very strong doubts on this.
>>
>>
> One of the big reasons the manpower was "scarce" is we did not have a
> proper system to locate, train, and promote new people into this
> "manpower". The QA team has made great strides into fixing that and we
> do now have a process in place, and a good stream of incoming people
> willing to donate some time and effort to help the project.
My perception is: "marketing" has directed into a direction which drains
away man-power into an uncertain process whose only immediate effect is
bureaucracy, whose long term outcome is uncertain and who foundations
are very questionable, to say the least.


> We are not
> just "hoping" that people will show up and test, we're actively building
> a community of people who will be dedicated to testing these things.
We will see - My opinon and expectation are very different from yours.
--
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 AM.

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