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 11-17-2010, 06:13 AM
Kevin Kofler
 
Default Plan for tomorrow's FESCo meeting (2010-11-17)

Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> * F12 critical path/update testing issues. (does it matter this close to
> EOL?)

Now Fedora n-1 is F13 and we're already seeing the same sort of issues there
(e.g. the KDE 4.5.3 (non-critpath) bugfix update has karma 4 on F14 and 0 on
F13).

Kevin Kofler

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 11-17-2010, 07:10 PM
Kevin Fenzi
 
Default Plan for tomorrow's FESCo meeting (2010-11-17)

On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 08:13 +0100
Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler@chello.at> wrote:

> Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > * F12 critical path/update testing issues. (does it matter this
> > close to EOL?)
>
> Now Fedora n-1 is F13 and we're already seeing the same sort of
> issues there (e.g. the KDE 4.5.3 (non-critpath) bugfix update has
> karma 4 on F14 and 0 on F13).

So, there are no folks in the KDE sig using F13 anymore?

Perhaps call for testers in the users / kde lists?

kevin
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 11-17-2010, 09:04 PM
Kevin Kofler
 
Default Plan for tomorrow's FESCo meeting (2010-11-17)

Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> So, there are no folks in the KDE sig using F13 anymore?
>
> Perhaps call for testers in the users / kde lists?

I think this issue goes far, far beyond just KDE. There are packages which
have few users even for Fedora n, let alone n-1.

Yet another example of the update processes delaying an update for ages is
the recent libgsf update
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libgsf-1.14.18-1.fc13 , which was
stuck for a month until the maintainer sent a nagmail to this mailing list
(a method to get provenpackager attention which doesn't really scale).
(libgsf is critpath due to being a dependency of something critical, so it
gets the extra-hardcore policy.)

The processes just don't work, for the EXACT reasons I had brought up back
when they were about to be introduced. It's time to stop living in denial,
admit that the new processes are a failure and repeal them entirely.

Kevin Kofler

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 11-17-2010, 09:38 PM
François Cami
 
Default Plan for tomorrow's FESCo meeting (2010-11-17)

On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 11:04 PM, Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler@chello.at> wrote:
> Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>> So, there are no folks in the KDE sig using F13 anymore?
>>
>> Perhaps call for testers in the users / kde lists?
>
> I think this issue goes far, far beyond just KDE. There are packages which
> have few users even for Fedora n, let alone n-1.

That may be pure speculation, but it seems that Fedora contributors
testing updates only use Fedora n because they tend to upgrade as soon
as the next release is available. We have a few choices, including:
* actively deciding that n-1 will receive less updates than n (good, I
think, because the worst kinks should be hammered out of a distro in 6
months anyway, so that leaves more or less security).
* pushing updates for n-1 no matter what testing they've had (bad).
Any other option I haven't thought of?

> Yet another example of the update processes delaying an update for ages is
> the recent libgsf update
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libgsf-1.14.18-1.fc13 , which was
> stuck for a month until the maintainer sent a nagmail to this mailing list
> (a method to get provenpackager attention which doesn't really scale).
> (libgsf is critpath due to being a dependency of something critical, so it
> gets the extra-hardcore policy.)

The bug was only opened more than four months after f13 was released.
My interpretation is that not many users were impacted, and therefore
living another month with it was acceptable.

François
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 11-18-2010, 01:19 AM
Mike Fedyk
 
Default Plan for tomorrow's FESCo meeting (2010-11-17)

On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 11:13 PM, Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler@chello.at> wrote:
> Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>> * F12 critical path/update testing issues. (does it matter this close to
>> EOL?)
>
> Now Fedora n-1 is F13 and we're already seeing the same sort of issues there
> (e.g. the KDE 4.5.3 (non-critpath) bugfix update has karma 4 on F14 and 0 on
> F13).
>

Good. Let people actually test it before it goes to everyone.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 11-20-2010, 05:18 AM
Adam Williamson
 
Default Plan for tomorrow's FESCo meeting (2010-11-17)

On Wed, 2010-11-17 at 08:13 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > * F12 critical path/update testing issues. (does it matter this close to
> > EOL?)
>
> Now Fedora n-1 is F13 and we're already seeing the same sort of issues there
> (e.g. the KDE 4.5.3 (non-critpath) bugfix update has karma 4 on F14 and 0 on
> F13).

so, get the Fedora KDE SIG - of which you appear to be a prominent
member - to test it. This system really does work best if you take some
kind of role in making sure your stuff is tested. That was, as I
understand it, kind of the idea of introducing the system in the first
place. The idea was never that some magic independent group of testers
would spend the rest of their lives doing nothing but test 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 11-20-2010, 09:23 AM
Till Maas
 
Default Plan for tomorrow's FESCo meeting (2010-11-17)

On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 10:18:38PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:

> place. The idea was never that some magic independent group of testers
> would spend the rest of their lives doing nothing but test updates.

This idea was never prominently communicated as the default
situation. Iirc it was said that there are lots of people who want the
update criteria and will test updates. Making package maintainers now
start to beg for their updates to be tested is imho just a big waste of
time. Also there is no dispensable manpower from package maintainers
available, so requiring them to additionally test each other updates
manually and to maintain test machines is not a good idea. The whole
update criteria enforcement only works if there are enough dedicated
testers that provide extra manpower. Or if the testing is all automated.

Regards
Till
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 11-20-2010, 03:44 PM
Adam Williamson
 
Default Plan for tomorrow's FESCo meeting (2010-11-17)

On Sat, 2010-11-20 at 11:23 +0100, Till Maas wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 10:18:38PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
>
> > place. The idea was never that some magic independent group of testers
> > would spend the rest of their lives doing nothing but test updates.
>
> This idea was never prominently communicated as the default
> situation. Iirc it was said that there are lots of people who want the
> update criteria and will test updates. Making package maintainers now
> start to beg for their updates to be tested is imho just a big waste of
> time.

> Also there is no dispensable manpower from package maintainers
> available, so requiring them to additionally test each other updates
> manually and to maintain test machines is not a good idea. The whole
> update criteria enforcement only works if there are enough dedicated
> testers that provide extra manpower. Or if the testing is all automated.

I'm looking back through the hideous fesco meeting discussions of this
stuff and I don't see any suggestion that there would be "lots of people
who want the update criteria and will test updates". Granted I may be
missing it, but I can't find it. We set up the proven testers group to
test *critpath* updates, they're not really expected to be any more
likely to test non-critpath updates than anyone else; even there, the
whole point of the proven testers group is to get as many people as
possible to join, and from outside of QA. The last time we went through
this I suggested to the KDE SIG that they have their members sign up as
proventesters so they could test each other's packages, and I know that
at least some of them did sign up; however, it appears that now they
don't want to be bothered to do the testing, if what you're saying is
true for the team.

I really don't see how you can say that testing updates is a 'waste of
time' with a straight face. It *takes* time, yes. It may be boring
sometimes, yes. But a waste of time? Do you write your code perfectly
first time, every time? Does it never have any bugs in it? Are you 100%
confident when you run 'make' that everything's going to pop out the
other end in perfect working order? Or sometimes, just sometimes, do you
screw up, and when the compile fails or the built binary fails to run,
you go 'oops, yeah, better fix that'? That's 'testing', and everyone
does that (at least I really hope they do). Why wouldn't you want to do
the same for packages? Just like code doesn't always come out right the
first time, neither do packages. I really don't see why you think it's a
great idea to push an update of the entire KDE desktop to a stable
Fedora release without any of you actually installing it and checking
that it *works*.

(Now I see that Kevin posted a comment to the update claiming to have
tested it, and it went through. As I said, I think that's fine, so long
as he *actually* tested it; FESCo didn't think so, so if anyone wants to
complain about it, or Luke stops you being able to test your own updates
in Bodhi, we can have another fun argument about that. But at least
*someone* booted the damn thing now!)
--
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 11-20-2010, 04:38 PM
François Cami
 
Default Plan for tomorrow's FESCo meeting (2010-11-17)

On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 5:44 PM, Adam Williamson <awilliam@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-11-20 at 11:23 +0100, Till Maas wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 10:18:38PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
>>
>> > place. The idea was never that some magic independent group of testers
>> > would spend the rest of their lives doing nothing but test updates.
>>
>> This idea was never prominently communicated as the default
>> situation. Iirc it was said that there are lots of people who want the
>> update criteria and will test updates. Making package maintainers now
>> start to beg for their updates to be tested is imho just a big waste of
>> time.
>>
>> Also there is no dispensable manpower from package maintainers
>> available, so requiring them to additionally test each other updates
>> manually and to maintain test machines is not a good idea. The whole
>> update criteria enforcement only works if there are enough dedicated
>> testers that provide extra manpower. Or if the testing is all automated.

There is also no other choice if we want to reduce the probability of
introducing regressions in updates.
Testing complex packages (esp. network services, virtualization, and
even whole desktop environments, see below) requires some technical
skills and also knowledge of these packages. In other word, we need
technical-minded, knowledgeable people in the proventesters group.
Note that the dedicated proventesters (apparently) provide extra
manpower, possibly not enough yet for the goals we've set for
ourselves.

> I'm looking back through the hideous fesco meeting discussions of this
> stuff and I don't see any suggestion that there would be "lots of people
> who want the update criteria and will test updates". Granted I may be
> missing it, but I can't find it. We set up the proven testers group to
> test *critpath* updates, they're not really expected to be any more
> likely to test non-critpath updates than anyone else; even there, the
> whole point of the proven testers group is to get as many people as
> possible to join, and from outside of QA. The last time we went through
> this I suggested to the KDE SIG that they have their members sign up as
> proventesters so they could test each other's packages, and I know that
> at least some of them did sign up; however, it appears that now they
> don't want to be bothered to do the testing, if what you're saying is
> true for the team.
>
> I really don't see how you can say that testing updates is a 'waste of
> time' with a straight face. It *takes* time, yes. It may be boring
> sometimes, yes. But a waste of time? Do you write your code perfectly
> first time, every time? Does it never have any bugs in it? Are you 100%
> confident when you run 'make' that everything's going to pop out the
> other end in perfect working order? Or sometimes, just sometimes, do you
> screw up, and when the compile fails or the built binary fails to run,
> you go 'oops, yeah, better fix that'? That's 'testing', and everyone
> does that (at least I really hope they do). Why wouldn't you want to do
> the same for packages? Just like code doesn't always come out right the
> first time, neither do packages. I really don't see why you think it's a
> great idea to push an update of the entire KDE desktop to a stable
> Fedora release without any of you actually installing it and checking
> that it *works*.

A Desktop Environment being a complex piece of code (this is
especially true for the biggest DEs, KDE and GNOME), I think someone
else, and preferably a lot of people, than the maintainer needs to
test it before it being pushed to stable. It's all about having
different use cases. For instance, I know that I only use a fairly
small subset of XFCE. So while I, as a proventester, could confidently
say that the parts I use do work after a XFCE update, I would never go
as far as pretend each and every plugin or feature works. So we
probably need more than a single tester to feel confident about a DE
update.

I also happen to believe that pushing a new version (not a dot
release) of an entire DE (or any complex software for that matter) to
a stable Fedora release is a very bad idea. There might obviously be
new features and bugfixes but there *will* be other bugs. It's a fact.
Since we're apparently not always prepared to backport fixes from
upstream each time we find bugs, I fail to see why replacing a release
by another, each with its different bugs, is a win, from the user's
point of view. IMHO this is far too much disruptive a decision, since
users who rely on specific features to work could get their desktops
hosed between releases. How are they supposed to handle that?

François
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 11-20-2010, 06:24 PM
Toshio Kuratomi
 
Default Plan for tomorrow's FESCo meeting (2010-11-17)

On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 11:23:37AM +0100, Till Maas wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 10:18:38PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
>
> > place. The idea was never that some magic independent group of testers
> > would spend the rest of their lives doing nothing but test updates.
>
> This idea was never prominently communicated as the default
> situation. Iirc it was said that there are lots of people who want the
> update criteria and will test updates. Making package maintainers now
> start to beg for their updates to be tested is imho just a big waste of
> time. Also there is no dispensable manpower from package maintainers
> available, so requiring them to additionally test each other updates
> manually and to maintain test machines is not a good idea. The whole
> update criteria enforcement only works if there are enough dedicated
> testers that provide extra manpower. Or if the testing is all automated.
>
This was my impression too... I've read adamw's reply to this message so
I'll just reply here that I got that impression from the email threads
rather than from the fesco meeting logs specifically. Note that I did see
that there was a shift in some people saying that package maintainers should
be responsible for mobilising testers at some point... but at that point
I must have already got the wrong impression in my head.

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

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 12:23 AM.

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