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 08-13-2010, 07:57 AM
Jaroslav Reznik
 
Default New bodhi release in production

On Friday, August 13, 2010 03:10:46 am Kevin Kofler wrote:
> I wrote:
> > But FWIW, when it comes to KDE in particular, the whole thing is moot or
> > soon to be moot anyway because parts of KDE are now being redefined as
> > "critical path", resulting in even more annoying update policies, even
> > though there was clear consensus in KDE SIG that such policies are
> > neither necessary for nor of any benefit to KDE. FESCo just asked us to
> > come up with a list of critical KDE packages and shut up. So we did. (My
> > proposal to submit an empty list was voted down in KDE SIG on the
> > grounds of being against the spirit of what FESCo asked of us, even
> > though it did get some support due to our objections to the critical
> > path process as a whole.) We (KDE SIG) have been more or less forced to
> > participate in a process most of us (and me in particular) do not agree
> > with and consider outright harmful.
>
> PS:
>
> 1. The critical path update rules (and thus also the clause in the general
> update rules which references them) were initially defined as requiring
> only 1 proventester to approve. (This was left somewhat vague in the
> actual policy, but 1 proventester was what was mentioned in all the
> discussion inside FESCo.) This was modified to 1 proventester + 1 other
> tester to match existing practice for freezes (the Critical Path Policy
> implemented as part of No Frozen Rawhide). FESCo never actually voted to
> approve that change, it was single-handedly made in the wiki by one
> person. This makes this policy much more of a PITA than it could have
> been. It also shows that we aren't even trusting PROVEN testers to
> reliably test a package! This is really ridiculous!
>
> 2. FESCo also rejected an amendment I suggested to make sure that the
> proventesters group should include at least one member of each of the main
> 4 desktops' SIGs. And in fact, no KDE SIG member was included in the
> initial proventesters seed, despite Rex Dieter:
> (i) having applied WEEKS before the proventesters group was seeded and
> (ii) having YEARS of experience with approving freeze overrides, as he had
> been processing freeze override requests all over the years in the old rel-
> eng-Trac-ticket-based process.
> This really hurts the abilities of SIGs to self-organize, instead promoting
> a kind of centralized power distribution which just does not scale to our
> evergrowing distribution. If you want KDE to be considered critical path,
> you also have to allow KDE people to approve critical path packages. (In
> fact, I think we actually need much more than one KDE proventester in the
> long run.) And likewise for XFCE and LXDE.

Indeed - we need at least two proventesters for our purposes. And if others
don't trust our testing - provide Plasma Desktop testers for us ;-) Or let
exchange proventesters, we can test Desktop spin, you can test Plasma Desktop
spin - for objectivity. But we desperetely need proventesters once we're on the
list. I agreed to provide correct critical path list for Plasma Desktop as I
think it's really good idea but current situation is really very sad And as I
remember noone asked if we want to update the list after the policy was set - I
would vote against including Plasma Desktop in this kind implementation of
critical pathset. But I shut down - my fault I missed FESCo elections deadline,
next time ;-)

Jaroslav

> IMHO, FESCo should be abolished, Fedora needs to be ruled by the SIGs!
>
> Kevin Kofler

--
Jaroslav Řezn*k <jreznik@redhat.com>
Software Engineer - Base Operating Systems Brno

Office: +420 532 294 275
Mobile: +420 602 797 774
Red Hat, Inc. http://cz.redhat.com/
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 08-13-2010, 08:11 AM
Jaroslav Reznik
 
Default New bodhi release in production

On Friday, August 13, 2010 03:26:11 am Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler@chello.at> said:
> > IMHO, FESCo should be abolished, Fedora needs to be ruled by the SIGs!
>
> Why are you here?

To work? Not to play politics games? Kevin is really one of the top Fedora
contributors.

> All you do is shout about how everything that is done
> is done wrong, and how you wanted to do it different but were out-voted.
> Why don't you go start your own distribution? If you are right, then
> you should have no trouble getting a large group of developers,
> producing an awesome OS, and then you can prove FESCo wrong.

It would hurt all sides - it would hurt Fedora, the new distribution, our work
in Red Hat, users and so on. And I don't understand why we can't work under one
roof - to make Fedora the best OS. Maybe more autonomy for SIGs could help as
Kevin proposed?

Jaroslav

> Otherwise, give it a rest. I think everybody knows how you feel, please
> stop reminding us. There's nothing productive about this.

--
Jaroslav Řezn*k <jreznik@redhat.com>
Software Engineer - Base Operating Systems Brno

Office: +420 532 294 275
Mobile: +420 602 797 774
Red Hat, Inc. http://cz.redhat.com/
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 08-13-2010, 08:13 AM
Jaroslav Reznik
 
Default New bodhi release in production

On Friday, August 13, 2010 01:27:18 am Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Luke Macken wrote:
> > Fixed in
> > https://fedorahosted.org/bodhi/changeset/97b1a9d1f9ceecaaa2128837cc5bbd7f
> > 8e495f36
>
> That "fix" is really unhelpful and makes it a PITA to edit updates! In the
> past, KDE SIG has often edited in some trivial fixes into the final stable
> push of a KDE grouped update which has been in testing for a long time.
> Your "fix" breaks that. Plus, edits can also be only to the description or
> bug references, Bodhi doesn't allow me to edit those without editing the
> whole update.

Then we have to push broken updates, policy says so and it's ok, so let's do it


Jaroslav

> Kevin Kofler

--
Jaroslav Řezn*k <jreznik@redhat.com>
Software Engineer - Base Operating Systems Brno

Office: +420 532 294 275
Mobile: +420 602 797 774
Red Hat, Inc. http://cz.redhat.com/
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 08-13-2010, 11:20 AM
Michael Schwendt
 
Default New bodhi release in production

On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 17:57:28 -0400, Luke wrote:

> A new version of bodhi has just hit production. This release contains
> a number of bugfixes and improvements, along with some important process
> changes.

> - Minimum time-in-testing requirements
> - Every day bodhi will look for updates that have been
> in testing for N days (fedora: N=7, epel: N=14), and will
> add a comment notifying the maintainer that the update is
> now able to be pushed to stable.

This sent notifications also for packages in "pending".

| bodhi - 2010-08-12 21:09:52 (karma: 0)
| This update has reached 274 days in testing and can be pushed
| to stable now if the maintainer wishes
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 08-13-2010, 02:16 PM
Till Maas
 
Default New bodhi release in production

On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 05:57:28PM -0400, Luke Macken wrote:

> - Show 7 days worth of entries in our RSS feeds, as opposed to 20
> entries (https://fedorahosted.org/bodhi/ticket/339)

This is nice, I forgot to add myself to the CC list, so I did not notice
this before.

> - Only verify the autokarma thresholds if it is enabled (Thanks to
> Till Maas)

This is still faulty. Is there a way to get access to a running bodhi
instance that I can patch and test directly? A local instance set up
according to
https://fedorahosted.org/bodhi/wiki/Development
does not allow to edit updates, because of tagging problems. Making this
possible would of course be great.

Regards
Till
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 08-13-2010, 03:03 PM
Rahul Sundaram
 
Default New bodhi release in production

On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 3:27 AM, Luke Macken wrote:

A new version of bodhi has just hit production. *This release contains

a number of bugfixes and improvements, along with some important process

changes.



* * *https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates


I expect more fine tuning will be needed for these changes but thanks for all your work on this.


Rahul

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 08-13-2010, 03:05 PM
Michael Cronenworth
 
Default New bodhi release in production

Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> I expect more fine tuning will be needed for these changes but thanks
> for all your work on this.

Indeed! Thanks Luke. Bodhi became much more useful with this update even
if there are a few nay-sayers.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 08-13-2010, 03:08 PM
Kevin Kofler
 
Default New bodhi release in production

Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
> It would hurt all sides - it would hurt Fedora, the new distribution, our
> work in Red Hat, users and so on. And I don't understand why we can't work
> under one roof - to make Fedora the best OS. Maybe more autonomy for SIGs
> could help as Kevin proposed?

Yeah, the SIGs are the ones who do the actual work, FESCo and the Board are
just political bureaucrats. Proper meritocracy means the SIGs get to decide.

Kevin Kofler

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 08-13-2010, 03:09 PM
Kevin Kofler
 
Default New bodhi release in production

Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
> Then we have to push broken updates, policy says so and it's ok, so let's
> do it
>

A policy requiring us to push something broken is broken. I'm not going to
push broken shit.

Kevin Kofler

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 08-13-2010, 03:10 PM
Kevin Kofler
 
Default New bodhi release in production

Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>>> I think, for packages that are modified during the testing period,
>>> this N should be calculated from the day the last push was made to
>>> testing.
>
> This would very unhelpful.
>
>> Yes, this was my initial intention. However, looking at the code a bit
>> closer, your scenario would currently be allowed, as it currently only
>> calculates the time-in-testing based on the first push to testing.
> This behavior is helpful, because otherwise updates would "starve".

+1

Once again, we're in violent agreement!

Kevin Kofler

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

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 10:10 PM.

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