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 11-24-2010, 10:13 AM
Toshio Kuratomi
 
Default The new Update Acceptance Criteria are broken

On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 05:51:06AM +0100, Miloslav Trma─Ź wrote:
> Mike Fedyk p├*┼íe v Po 22. 11. 2010 v 18:03 -0800:
> > Also security updates should not have any other changes mixed in.
> In the early days of Fedora, it was explicitly decided that (contra
> Debian) maintainers are not required to backport patches and that
> rebases (fixing a bug by updating to a new upstream release) are the
> most expected kind of update.
>
> It seems the consensus on this decision is not as strong as it used to
> be, nevertheless - with the number of package maintainers that admit
> they can't fix bugs in their packages on their own, is overturning this
> policy even possible?
> Mirek

Thanks, Mirek, for pointing out the first issue with this idea. The second
issue is that Fedora doesn't have a security team which fixes security
issues. We have package maintainers and the people they can/will ping to
come up with solutions for security issues. The security team was just
there for keeping track of when security issues are reported in other venues
and seeing that we addressed them in Fedora (I'm not sure how active it
still is either.)

-Toshio
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 11-24-2010, 10:22 AM
Toshio Kuratomi
 
Default The new Update Acceptance Criteria are broken

On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 08:31:15AM +0000, "Jˇhann B. Gu­mundsson" wrote:
> On 11/23/2010 06:51 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > IMO, the real problem is not "backports" vs. "upgrading" to "fix bugs",
> > it's bugs not getting fixed in Fedora, for a variety of reasons.
> >
> > Therefore, I consider trying to apply any such simple "policy" to be
> > impossible and naive.
>
> Agreeable logical conclusion.
>
> The underlying problem needs to get address and fixed first.
>
> I proposed this as a possible long term solution in one rough possible
> way a bit back on a different list to try to address the underlying
> issue but I did not receive any feedback on that proposal.
>
> 1. Improve the general standard of packagers ( need to at least have
> upstream bugzilla account and are part of or in good communication with
> the upstream community )
> 2 Allow for a adjusting period when it's over revoke the rights from
> those that already have but do not full fill this requirements. Package
> goes up for grabs or gets dropped.

I don't agree with the combination of the above two. The first is a nice to
have but we also have to realize that requiring that will require lots more
manpower. Step #2 is basically the enforcement phase for making #1
a requiement. I think that at some point maintaining a package becomes too
much effort and as the number of packages that were too much effort build
up, the utility of Fedora goes down.

> 2. Allow all maintainers to touch every component in Fedora note that
> maintainer that brought the component to Fedora is still responsible for
> his components.
>
I like this idea.

> 3. Gather what information from all those maintainers we have in the
> community what their code skill are and in which language and what skill
> level their expertise is.
> 4. Assemble a "bug fixing task force" ( can be per language ) to target
> component ( including testers if needed ).

I like this idea as well however...

> 5. Assign a component to the "bug fixing task force" and assign a time
> period they should spend looking at the bugs on that component and
> fixing them could be a day a week a month starting from critical path
> and onwards.

We have a tiny version of this in the FES tickets for fixing bundled
libraries. I note that the python sub-ticket of that is the only one that's
been closed. The C and php ones have hardly been touched. I'm not sure
what would make this experience more productive.

-Toshio
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 11-24-2010, 11:07 AM
Ralf Corsepius
 
Default The new Update Acceptance Criteria are broken

On 11/24/2010 12:22 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 08:31:15AM +0000, "Jˇhann B. Gu­mundsson" wrote:
>> On 11/23/2010 06:51 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>>> IMO, the real problem is not "backports" vs. "upgrading" to "fix bugs",
>>> it's bugs not getting fixed in Fedora, for a variety of reasons.
>>>
>>> Therefore, I consider trying to apply any such simple "policy" to be
>>> impossible and naive.
>>
>> Agreeable logical conclusion.
>>
>> The underlying problem needs to get address and fixed first.
>>
>> I proposed this as a possible long term solution in one rough possible
>> way a bit back on a different list to try to address the underlying
>> issue but I did not receive any feedback on that proposal.
>>
>> 1. Improve the general standard of packagers ( need to at least have
>> upstream bugzilla account and are part of or in good communication with
>> the upstream community )
"One size doesn't fit everybody"

This is applicable in some occasions, but is non-applicable in many.


>> 2. Allow all maintainers to touch every component in Fedora note that
>> maintainer that brought the component to Fedora is still responsible for
>> his components.
>>
> I like this idea.
Hmm, we already have the proven-packagers group and we already have the
concept of co-maintainers.

>> 4. Assemble a "bug fixing task force" ( can be per language ) to target
>> component ( including testers if needed ).
>
> I like this idea as well however...
Again, proven-packagers already can do this.


At least I occasionally applied my proven-packagers' privileges to
troubleshoot critical situations. However, having done so, one lesson
learnt from this, was this kind of help often only to be a short-term
relief, but not to be a long term cure, because packages which are
suffering from issues a "trouble-shooting group" is able to help often
suffer from much deeper issues.

Also, it's this kind of situations, where Fedora's QA's "delays" have
shown to be counter-productive.

Ralf
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 11-24-2010, 06:39 PM
Adam Williamson
 
Default The new Update Acceptance Criteria are broken

On Wed, 2010-11-24 at 13:07 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:

> Also, it's this kind of situations, where Fedora's QA's "delays" have
> shown to be counter-productive.

To be clear, they are not QA's delays. The initial proposal to FESCo was
by mjg, the revised proposal was by notting, and it was FESCo which
voted to adopt the policy requiring karma or a 7-day delay for updates.
--
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 11-28-2010, 10:36 AM
Bruno Wolff III
 
Default The new Update Acceptance Criteria are broken

On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 18:15:29 +0100,
Till Maas <opensource@till.name> wrote:
>
> You can very easy report that you have installed some update, used it
> and it did not break. This is afaik enough to justify +1 karma.

I thought you needed to do a bit more than just install a package to
give a +1. But hopefully this situation is short term and autoQA will
catch problems here instead of us humans. For now I just report file conflicts
and what look to be missing obsoletes.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 11-28-2010, 11:38 AM
Till Maas
 
Default The new Update Acceptance Criteria are broken

On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 05:36:58AM -0600, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 18:15:29 +0100,
> Till Maas <opensource@till.name> wrote:
> >
> > You can very easy report that you have installed some update, used it
> > and it did not break. This is afaik enough to justify +1 karma.
>
> I thought you needed to do a bit more than just install a package to
> give a +1. But hopefully this situation is short term and autoQA will

I wrote to give +1 after using it and your original problem was, that
you did not notice when something works. So if you updated firefox
yesterday and used it to browse the world wide web without problems and
run fedora-easy-karma today, you can give the firefox update a +1.
Fedora-easy-karma shows you how long rpms from an update have been
installed and you can even query only for updates with rpms that have
been installed for at least a certain time. So you only need to remember
whether you actually used it.

Regards
Till
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 11-28-2010, 11:39 AM
Bruno Wolff III
 
Default The new Update Acceptance Criteria are broken

On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 13:38:36 +0100,
Till Maas <opensource@till.name> wrote:
>
> I wrote to give +1 after using it and your original problem was, that
> you did not notice when something works. So if you updated firefox
> yesterday and used it to browse the world wide web without problems and
> run fedora-easy-karma today, you can give the firefox update a +1.
> Fedora-easy-karma shows you how long rpms from an update have been
> installed and you can even query only for updates with rpms that have
> been installed for at least a certain time. So you only need to remember
> whether you actually used it.

Ah, that's a bit different. I use updates-testing (or rawhide) and have kitchen
sink type installs, so lots of updates I get in updates-testing I don't
actually use. For things I don't actually use I just end up reporting about
installation problems. For things I do use, I usually have only been doing
karma when I am following up on a bug I have encountered.

But if easy-karma makes it easy to give karma for things I do use, then it's
probably worth taking a look at.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 04:48 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright ę2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org