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 04-19-2011, 05:40 PM
Adam Williamson
 
Default AutoQA: distro congestion?

On Tue, 2011-04-19 at 18:30 +0200, Thomas Spura wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 08:37:25 -0700
> Adam Williamson wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 2011-04-19 at 11:05 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> >
> > > Some packagers have been observed circumventing the system by
> > > configuring a karma threshold of 1, so their own +1 vote or the
> > > first one from an arbitrary tester make it possible to mark the
> > > update stable.
> >
> > Not...really. The update submitter's own vote should count as 0 (I
> > can't remember if this has landed in current Bodhi yet). Setting the
> > karma threshold to 1 cannot circumvent the 'proventesters +1 and any
> > +1' requirement for stable releases; just try it, it doesn't work. The
> > correct requirements are enforced whatever you set the autopush
> > threshold to.
>
> I just tried it (ok after the threshold of 3 days in f15) and it worked:
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ipython-0.10.2-1.fc15

F15 is a pre-release and does not have that requirement. Its requirement
is +1 from anyone - so you're not circumventing anything.
--
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 04-19-2011, 05:53 PM
Thomas Spura
 
Default AutoQA: distro congestion?

On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 10:40:22 -0700
Adam Williamson wrote:

> On Tue, 2011-04-19 at 18:30 +0200, Thomas Spura wrote:
> > On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 08:37:25 -0700
> > Adam Williamson wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, 2011-04-19 at 11:05 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > >
> > > > Some packagers have been observed circumventing the system by
> > > > configuring a karma threshold of 1, so their own +1 vote or the
> > > > first one from an arbitrary tester make it possible to mark the
> > > > update stable.
> > >
> > > Not...really. The update submitter's own vote should count as 0 (I
> > > can't remember if this has landed in current Bodhi yet). Setting
> > > the karma threshold to 1 cannot circumvent the 'proventesters +1
> > > and any +1' requirement for stable releases; just try it, it
> > > doesn't work. The correct requirements are enforced whatever you
> > > set the autopush threshold to.
> >
> > I just tried it (ok after the threshold of 3 days in f15) and it
> > worked:
> > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ipython-0.10.2-1.fc15
>
> F15 is a pre-release and does not have that requirement. Its
> requirement is +1 from anyone - so you're not circumventing
> anything.

Hmm, I still think own votes should never count or always. Either you
can trust the packager to not "just +1" it to push it and properly test
it, or you should never trust the owner of the update.
Isn't it?

Thomas
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 04-19-2011, 07:33 PM
Michael Schwendt
 
Default AutoQA: distro congestion?

On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 10:40:22 -0700, AW wrote:

> On Tue, 2011-04-19 at 18:30 +0200, Thomas Spura wrote:
> > On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 08:37:25 -0700
> > Adam Williamson wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, 2011-04-19 at 11:05 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > >
> > > > Some packagers have been observed circumventing the system by
> > > > configuring a karma threshold of 1, so their own +1 vote or the
> > > > first one from an arbitrary tester make it possible to mark the
> > > > update stable.
> > >
> > > Not...really. The update submitter's own vote should count as 0 (I
> > > can't remember if this has landed in current Bodhi yet). Setting the
> > > karma threshold to 1 cannot circumvent the 'proventesters +1 and any
> > > +1' requirement for stable releases; just try it, it doesn't work. The
> > > correct requirements are enforced whatever you set the autopush
> > > threshold to.
> >
> > I just tried it (ok after the threshold of 3 days in f15) and it worked:
> > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ipython-0.10.2-1.fc15
>
> F15 is a pre-release and does not have that requirement. Its requirement
> is +1 from anyone - so you're not circumventing anything.

We've always had the rule of thumb that packagers should not vote for
their own updates. It is assumed that the packagers test their own updates
and don't need to be explicit about their confidence in the update with
karma points in bodhi.

One goal of the update acceptance criteria for pre-releases is also that
_anyone_ gets an opportunity to try out a test-update before it is marked
stable.

Anyway, I think I've seen counted "self-votes" also for older dists, but not
done by many packagers.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 04-19-2011, 07:42 PM
"Nathanael D. Noblet"
 
Default AutoQA: distro congestion?

On 04/19/2011 01:33 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 10:40:22 -0700, AW wrote:
> We've always had the rule of thumb that packagers should not vote for
> their own updates. It is assumed that the packagers test their own updates
> and don't need to be explicit about their confidence in the update with
> karma points in bodhi.
>
> One goal of the update acceptance criteria for pre-releases is also that
> _anyone_ gets an opportunity to try out a test-update before it is marked
> stable.
>
> Anyway, I think I've seen counted "self-votes" also for older dists, but not
> done by many packagers.

I may have added karma to an update or two of mine. Usually with
packages that can break more critical services than regular packages.
The reason being is that I can test on my local workstation and in a VM,
however it isn't the same environment as my live servers. So I test
locally, push to updates-testing and consume it on my production
machines. If good, then I usually add karma. I think its fairly rare for
me, and I can only think of one package where I do that...

--
Nathanael d. Noblet
t 403.875.4613
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 04-19-2011, 10:47 PM
Ben Boeckel
 
Default AutoQA: distro congestion?

Michael Schwendt <mschwendt@gmail.com> wrote:
> We've always had the rule of thumb that packagers should not vote for
> their own updates. It is assumed that the packagers test their own updates
> and don't need to be explicit about their confidence in the update with
> karma points in bodhi.
>
> One goal of the update acceptance criteria for pre-releases is also that
> _anyone_ gets an opportunity to try out a test-update before it is marked
> stable.
>
> Anyway, I think I've seen counted "self-votes" also for older dists, but not
> done by many packagers.

What about to counteract "misplaced" karma? Example:

- Bug exists in version X.Y
- Update filed for X.Y+1
- User reports that bug still exists with -1 karma
- Maintainer replies with +1 karma that bug is not expected to be
fixed

--Ben

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 04-19-2011, 11:14 PM
Adam Williamson
 
Default AutoQA: distro congestion?

On Tue, 2011-04-19 at 22:47 +0000, Ben Boeckel wrote:

> What about to counteract "misplaced" karma? Example:
>
> - Bug exists in version X.Y
> - Update filed for X.Y+1
> - User reports that bug still exists with -1 karma
> - Maintainer replies with +1 karma that bug is not expected to be
> fixed

The 'correct' thing to do is to contact the user and ask them to correct
the feedback: if a user who previously gave a -1 gives a +1, this is
counted as a total of +1, not 0.
--
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 04-20-2011, 06:01 AM
Andre Robatino
 
Default AutoQA: distro congestion?

Adam Williamson <awilliam <at> redhat.com> writes:

>
> On Tue, 2011-04-19 at 22:47 +0000, Ben Boeckel wrote:
>
> > What about to counteract "misplaced" karma? Example:
> >
> > - Bug exists in version X.Y
> > - Update filed for X.Y+1
> > - User reports that bug still exists with -1 karma
> > - Maintainer replies with +1 karma that bug is not expected to be
> > fixed
>
> The 'correct' thing to do is to contact the user and ask them to correct
> the feedback: if a user who previously gave a -1 gives a +1, this is
> counted as a total of +1, not 0.

But if the user just wants to revoke their karma by changing their +/-1 to a 0
(say they realize they're not able to test properly, which happened to me),
that's still not possible (see https://fedorahosted.org/bodhi/ticket/296 ). So
it's necessary to get someone else to cancel it out, and it doesn't matter who.



--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 04-20-2011, 06:15 AM
Andre Robatino
 
Default AutoQA: distro congestion?

Andre Robatino <robatino <at> fedoraproject.org> writes:


> But if the user just wants to revoke their karma by changing their +/-1 to a 0
> (say they realize they're not able to test properly, which happened to me),
> that's still not possible (see https://fedorahosted.org/bodhi/ticket/296 ). So
> it's necessary to get someone else to cancel it out, and it doesn't matter who.

Sorry to respond to myself, but there's another relevant bug here: due to
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=612328 , bodhi email notification
only works for users with working fp.o email aliases, which requires being in at
least one non-CLA group. A user might simply be unresponsive, or due to this
bug, may not even be contactable to ask them to change their karma.




--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 04-20-2011, 07:56 AM
Axel Thimm
 
Default AutoQA: distro congestion?

On Tue, 2011-04-19 at 10:50 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Axel Thimm wrote:
> > Maybe the bodhi messages confused me. When I logon to a.f.o/updates it
> > prominently displays:
> >
> > Bodhi is now enforcing the Package Update Acceptance
> > Criteria across all Fedora releases.
>
> The criteria which are being enforced do not include AutoQA results at this
> time. They do, however, include minimum testing (time and/or karma)
> requirements, which probably explains why your stable request was rejected.
> (And I've been fighting against those requirements since they were first
> proposed, because I strongly believe this decision should really be up to
> the maintainer, but I lost that battle.)

Well, two questions:

a) Weren't updates marked as security updates handled specially? E.g.
the packages to get tagged as push-requested with the final decision
being a pusher's review of the request?

b) In the past if karma/time requirements were not met one could still
mark the request and the request would show up. Possibly not
granted/processed until the requirements were met (unless the package
was security related or fixing a too nasty bug), but not immediately
cleared as if it never happened (which is the current state).

--
http://thimm.gr/ - http://ATrpms.net/
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 04-20-2011, 08:02 AM
Axel Thimm
 
Default AutoQA: distro congestion?

On Tue, 2011-04-19 at 11:05 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> You've tried to select "stable" as the target already when submitting
> the updates, and bodhi rejected that. With the CVEs mentioned for Mediawiki,
> why didn't you choose "security" instead of "stable"?

But I did. All packages are marked as "security updates" in their
"type". As a target ("request") you only have the choice "testing" or
"stable" (and "none"). There isn't any from that mentions "security" and
"stable".

E.g. the packages are marked as security updates and whatever the cause,
autoqa, missing karma, missing time, for some reason (partly undisclosed
as mentioned in my post yesterday) bodhi rejects them. IMO if the
packager marks the package as as security update bodhi should stay out
of the way and allow a human to decide on pushing the update or not. ATM
bodhi cuts me off the pushers.
--
http://thimm.gr/ - http://ATrpms.net/
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 07:43 AM.

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