Linux Archive

Linux Archive (http://www.linux-archive.org/)
-   Fedora Development (http://www.linux-archive.org/fedora-development/)
-   -   AutoQA: distro congestion? (http://www.linux-archive.org/fedora-development/515055-autoqa-distro-congestion.html)

Axel Thimm 04-16-2011 07:52 PM

AutoQA: distro congestion?
 
Hi,

I built two sets of security updates for f13/f14/f15 and autoqa rejected
the f13/f14 packages. It looks like autoqa is waiting for the packages
to be properly pushed to f<N+1> stable before green-lighting the
matching package for f<N>. Do I have to wait until the packages for f15
are pushed to repush the packages for f14 and then wait again for
pushing into f13? Or is there some automatism that reevaluates and
repushes packages w/o any further intervention from the packagers?

I guess this is also slowing down the people that grant the package
push. Previously they could evaluate the package updates in one sweep,
now they will see and approve the "same" package in three cycles.
--
http://thimm.gr/ - http://ATrpms.net/
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Michael Schwendt 04-16-2011 09:03 PM

AutoQA: distro congestion?
 
On Sat, 16 Apr 2011 22:52:32 +0300, AT wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I built two sets of security updates for f13/f14/f15 and autoqa rejected
> the f13/f14 packages. It looks like autoqa is waiting for the packages
> to be properly pushed to f<N+1> stable before green-lighting the
> matching package for f<N>. Do I have to wait until the packages for f15
> are pushed to repush the packages for f14 and then wait again for
> pushing into f13? Or is there some automatism that reevaluates and
> repushes packages w/o any further intervention from the packagers?
>
> I guess this is also slowing down the people that grant the package
> push. Previously they could evaluate the package updates in one sweep,
> now they will see and approve the "same" package in three cycles.

AutoQA's comments in bodhi so far are just informative. They don't
block any update [yet].
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Axel Thimm 04-17-2011 04:51 AM

AutoQA: distro congestion?
 
On Sat, 2011-04-16 at 23:03 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Apr 2011 22:52:32 +0300, AT wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I built two sets of security updates for f13/f14/f15 and autoqa rejected
> > the f13/f14 packages. It looks like autoqa is waiting for the packages
> > to be properly pushed to f<N+1> stable before green-lighting the
> > matching package for f<N>. Do I have to wait until the packages for f15
> > are pushed to repush the packages for f14 and then wait again for
> > pushing into f13? Or is there some automatism that reevaluates and
> > repushes packages w/o any further intervention from the packagers?
> >
> > I guess this is also slowing down the people that grant the package
> > push. Previously they could evaluate the package updates in one sweep,
> > now they will see and approve the "same" package in three cycles.
>
> AutoQA's comments in bodhi so far are just informative. They don't
> block any update [yet].

Are you sure? I requested a push of the packages to stable (some were in
testing for a week, others were security updates) and the message was
that it doesn't pass AutoQA, so it converted to request to push only to
testing and indeed bodhi has marked the request as to testing only.

Also the comments are not in bodhi at all. All I get is the message that
AutoQA blocked the packages and sometimes an email with the results of
the AutoQA run.
--
http://thimm.gr/ - http://ATrpms.net/
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Kevin Kofler 04-17-2011 06:01 AM

AutoQA: distro congestion?
 
Axel Thimm wrote:
> Are you sure? I requested a push of the packages to stable (some were in
> testing for a week, others were security updates) and the message was
> that it doesn't pass AutoQA, so it converted to request to push only to
> testing and indeed bodhi has marked the request as to testing only.

It did that because you changed it.

If you had kept the request to stable, it would have been pushed to stable.

AutoQA is still in testing phase, there is no enforcement yet.

Kevin Kofler

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

Michael Schwendt 04-17-2011 07:28 AM

AutoQA: distro congestion?
 
On Sun, 17 Apr 2011 08:01:55 +0200, KK wrote:

> Axel Thimm wrote:
> > Are you sure? I requested a push of the packages to stable (some were in
> > testing for a week, others were security updates) and the message was
> > that it doesn't pass AutoQA, so it converted to request to push only to
> > testing and indeed bodhi has marked the request as to testing only.
>
> It did that because you changed it.
>
> If you had kept the request to stable, it would have been pushed to stable.
>
> AutoQA is still in testing phase, there is no enforcement yet.
>
> Kevin Kofler
>

Probably there's a misunderstanding of the AutoQA notifications.
They are added to bodhi tickets, see e.g. the "mediawiki" tickets here,

https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/user/athimm

and those comments are forwarded to the update submitter (and ticket
subscribers). Also, several AutoQA check results have been mailed
privately (rpmlint, rpmguard).
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Tim Flink 04-18-2011 03:19 AM

AutoQA: distro congestion?
 
On 04/16/2011 01:52 PM, Axel Thimm wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I built two sets of security updates for f13/f14/f15 and autoqa rejected
> the f13/f14 packages. It looks like autoqa is waiting for the packages
> to be properly pushed to f<N+1> stable before green-lighting the
> matching package for f<N>. Do I have to wait until the packages for f15
> are pushed to repush the packages for f14 and then wait again for
> pushing into f13? Or is there some automatism that reevaluates and
> repushes packages w/o any further intervention from the packagers?
>
> I guess this is also slowing down the people that grant the package
> push. Previously they could evaluate the package updates in one sweep,
> now they will see and approve the "same" package in three cycles.

Others have already commented on this, but I wanted to re-state that
AutoQA is only in an informative mode right now. Any bodhi comments made
by AutoQA have no karma and are not used for anything other than
information. This will change sometime in the future, but not until at
least the F16 timeframe.

I took a look at your packages in bodhi [1] and was only able to find
one update with FAILED comments from AutoQA. Are there updates that I'm
missing here?

Looking at the depcheck output for mediawiki-1.16.4-57.fc13, however, I see:

mediawiki-nomath-1.16.4-57.fc13.x86_64 from pending has depsolving problems
--> mediawiki-nomath conflicts with php-common

This stems from the addition of the "Conflicts: php-common = 5.3.1" that
was added to the spec file [2] for 1.16.2-56.

I assume that this isn't the only package with a "Conflicts:" in the
spec and have filed a ticket against autoqa to better handle these
issues [3].

Tim


PS - you will generally get a faster response to AutoQA related
questions by posting to autoqa-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org instead of
just devel@

[1] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/user/athimm
[2]
http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/gitweb/?p=mediawiki.git;a=blob;f=mediawiki.spec;hb=a6b3d8 0ffb8344a35274ee266b462dc6e627c936
[3] https://fedorahosted.org/autoqa/ticket/308

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

Kamil Paral 04-18-2011 08:35 AM

AutoQA: distro congestion?
 
> Hi,
>
> I built two sets of security updates for f13/f14/f15 and autoqa
> rejected
> the f13/f14 packages. It looks like autoqa is waiting for the packages
> to be properly pushed to f<N+1> stable before green-lighting the
> matching package for f<N>.

I suppose you're talking about upgradepath test. Yes, that's exactly its behavior.

> Do I have to wait until the packages for
> f15
> are pushed to repush the packages for f14 and then wait again for
> pushing into f13? Or is there some automatism that reevaluates and
> repushes packages w/o any further intervention from the packagers?

No need to do that, upgradepath re-evaluates all proposed updates again and again (every time a new update is proposed into bodhi). If your update failed upgradepath, a new comment will appear once it passes (or every 3 days if it still fails).

> I guess this is also slowing down the people that grant the package
> push. Previously they could evaluate the package updates in one sweep,
> now they will see and approve the "same" package in three cycles.

This should be improved in the future.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Andreas Bierfert 04-18-2011 10:57 AM

AutoQA: distro congestion?
 
On Mon, 2011-04-18 at 04:35 -0400, Kamil Paral wrote:
> > I built two sets of security updates for f13/f14/f15 and autoqa
> > rejected
> > the f13/f14 packages. It looks like autoqa is waiting for the
> packages
> > to be properly pushed to f<N+1> stable before green-lighting the
> > matching package for f<N>.
>
> I suppose you're talking about upgradepath test. Yes, that's exactly
> its behavior.

This seems wrong to me. If I as a packager create an upgrade in bodhi,
autoqa should consider what is present in f<N+1> not only as stable
package but also as proposed upgrade. It should then impose a constraint
that the upgrade for f<N> can only be pushed to stable if f<N+1> is
pushed to stable at the same time (or obviously independently before).

Seeing a failed upgradepath test comment at least gives me the wrong
feeling on what is going on.

- Andreas
--
BrandAss Andreas Bierfert, M.Sc. | phone: +49 6897 1721738 | GPG: C58CF1CB
andreas.bierfert@lowlatency.de | fax: +49 6897 1722828 | signed/encrypted
http://lowlatency.de | cell: +49 170 9665206 | mail preferred
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Michael Schwendt 04-18-2011 11:58 AM

AutoQA: distro congestion?
 
On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 12:57:55 +0200, AB wrote:

> On Mon, 2011-04-18 at 04:35 -0400, Kamil Paral wrote:
> > > I built two sets of security updates for f13/f14/f15 and autoqa
> > > rejected
> > > the f13/f14 packages. It looks like autoqa is waiting for the
> > packages
> > > to be properly pushed to f<N+1> stable before green-lighting the
> > > matching package for f<N>.
> >
> > I suppose you're talking about upgradepath test. Yes, that's exactly
> > its behavior.
>
> This seems wrong to me. If I as a packager create an upgrade in bodhi,
> autoqa should consider what is present in f<N+1> not only as stable
> package but also as proposed upgrade. It should then impose a constraint
> that the upgrade for f<N> can only be pushed to stable if f<N+1> is
> pushed to stable at the same time (or obviously independently before).
>
> Seeing a failed upgradepath test comment at least gives me the wrong
> feeling on what is going on.

That is also going too far.

The upgradepath check ought to stay informative and should not impose any
constraints on the packagers. Consider it an early-warning system plus a
way to educate packagers. Once the packager has learned about the violated
upgradepath, it's up to the packager to decide whether to delay the
upgrade of f<N> and work on an upgrade of f<N+1> first. It should be
possible to update f<N> before f<N+1>, possibly via karma automatism or
for a security-fix that's ready for f<N> but needs a revised build for
f<N+1>. Let's not mess too much with a packager's work-flow.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Kamil Paral 04-18-2011 12:33 PM

AutoQA: distro congestion?
 
> On Mon, 2011-04-18 at 04:35 -0400, Kamil Paral wrote:
> > > I built two sets of security updates for f13/f14/f15 and autoqa
> > > rejected
> > > the f13/f14 packages. It looks like autoqa is waiting for the
> > packages
> > > to be properly pushed to f<N+1> stable before green-lighting the
> > > matching package for f<N>.
> >
> > I suppose you're talking about upgradepath test. Yes, that's exactly
> > its behavior.
>
> This seems wrong to me. If I as a packager create an upgrade in bodhi,
> autoqa should consider what is present in f<N+1> not only as stable
> package but also as proposed upgrade. It should then impose a
> constraint
> that the upgrade for f<N> can only be pushed to stable if f<N+1> is
> pushed to stable at the same time (or obviously independently before).

It is just a best effort for now. Once we are able to create those "safe to push" update sets, we will be able to consider not only packages in stable, but also packages in other currently proposed updates.

We want to reach the state you're talking about (while still staying informative). It's just not a few hours work :)
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:44 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.