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 05-29-2008, 08:33 AM
""G""
 
Default Suggestion with respect to the Fedora Update System

Hi

I got the following mail from Fedora updates. It says "The following
package has been moved to stable from testing". The Karma value
corresponding to this package is still zero (mentioned in the below
thread). Correct me if i am wrong, if the value reaches 3 its moved to
stable, thats how i understood it. I gave a comment for that package
that i am not able to test it because i was not aware what needs to be
tested for that enhancement.

Apart from this i ve an other problem. Suggestions and Comments
Welcome for this problem .
I browse through the Fedora Updates repository to start testing
packages which are under the fedora testing branch, but for some of
the packages, i see that its given as an enhancement (like the below
one) but i am not able to go ahead testing it because it does not
specifiy whats the enhnacement is about. I did notice that there are
some bug fixes too made which has got the word "bugfix" but does not
map to a Bug ID i.e, the Bug ID is not mentioned in the updates. It
becomes diffficult to test those packages and give appropriate and
correct feedback.I shouldnt give back a report saying that it works or
it does not work which might be a wrong test result because i might be
testing something but the fix would be for something else.

I would really appreciate if you all could help me with a suggestion
on this. I went a step ahead by raising a ticket in the bodhi system
so that we could have a field in the updates system where in when a
packager uploads the packages, a mandatory field on whats fixed if its
a bug fix could be stated and if its an enhanement , a small note on
what the enhancement is. Will this suggestion work ?

This would really help people testing packages from the bodhi
repository and thereby make Fedora a real rock solid distro.

Thanks for reading this . Hope people don't mistake me for this

Cheers,
Balaji


On 5/29/08, updates@fedoraproject.org <updates@fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> The following comment has been added to the gedit-2.22.1-1.fc9 update:
>
> balajig8 - 2008-05-25 14:44:49 (karma: 0)
> Hi
> It would be really helpful if you could let me know what the enhancement is so that i could test it and let you know the result. I would also really appreciate if the bugID( in this case the enhancement ID) could also be given so that i could test it specifically
>
> Cheers
> Balaji
>
> To reply to this comment, please visit the URL at the bottom of this mail
>
> ================================================== ==============================
> gedit-2.22.1-1.fc9
> ================================================== ==============================
> Update ID: FEDORA-2008-3797
> Release: Fedora 9
> Status: stable
> Type: enhancement
> Karma: 0
> Submitter: hadess
> Submitted: 2008-04-30 10:57:01
> Comments: bodhi - 2008-05-29 02:43:33 (karma 0)
> This update has been pushed to stable
> bodhi - 2008-05-13 15:29:10 (karma 0)
> This update has been pushed to testing
> balajig8 - 2008-05-25 14:44:49 (karma 0)
> Hi It would be really helpful if you could let me
> know what the enhancement is so that i could test it
> and let you know the result. I would also really
> appreciate if the bugID( in this case the enhancement
> ID) could also be given so that i could test it
> specifically Cheers Balaji
>
> http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F9/FEDORA-2008-3797
>
>

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 05-29-2008, 09:35 AM
Paul Howarth
 
Default Suggestion with respect to the Fedora Update System

"G" wrote:

Hi

I got the following mail from Fedora updates. It says "The following
package has been moved to stable from testing". The Karma value
corresponding to this package is still zero (mentioned in the below
thread). Correct me if i am wrong, if the value reaches 3 its moved to
stable, thats how i understood it. I gave a comment for that package
that i am not able to test it because i was not aware what needs to be
tested for that enhancement.

Apart from this i ve an other problem. Suggestions and Comments
Welcome for this problem .
I browse through the Fedora Updates repository to start testing
packages which are under the fedora testing branch, but for some of
the packages, i see that its given as an enhancement (like the below
one) but i am not able to go ahead testing it because it does not
specifiy whats the enhnacement is about. I did notice that there are
some bug fixes too made which has got the word "bugfix" but does not
map to a Bug ID i.e, the Bug ID is not mentioned in the updates. It
becomes diffficult to test those packages and give appropriate and
correct feedback.I shouldnt give back a report saying that it works or
it does not work which might be a wrong test result because i might be
testing something but the fix would be for something else.

I would really appreciate if you all could help me with a suggestion
on this. I went a step ahead by raising a ticket in the bodhi system
so that we could have a field in the updates system where in when a
packager uploads the packages, a mandatory field on whats fixed if its
a bug fix could be stated and if its an enhanement , a small note on
what the enhancement is. Will this suggestion work ?

This would really help people testing packages from the bodhi
repository and thereby make Fedora a real rock solid distro.

Thanks for reading this . Hope people don't mistake me for this


Often the bugs or enhancements come directly from upstream and not as a
result of tickets in Fedora's bugzilla. Sometimes there's not even an
entry in the upstream bug tracker either, so it's not always possible to
provide such references.


Having said that, I see many updates with no explanatory notes to say
what the bug or enhancement is, and in the case where there's no ticket
to refer to I think the notes can fill the gap quite well.


Paul.

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 05-29-2008, 09:46 AM
""G""
 
Default Suggestion with respect to the Fedora Update System

> Often the bugs or enhancements come directly from upstream and not as a
> result of tickets in Fedora's bugzilla. Sometimes there's not even an entry
> in the upstream bug tracker either, so it's not always possible to provide
> such references.

True! that but there should be same way to resolve this so that the
test case to be tested is given somewhere as part of the update system
or a link atleast

> Having said that, I see many updates with no explanatory notes to say what
> the bug or enhancement is, and in the case where there's no ticket to refer
> to I think the notes can fill the gap quite well.

If you take the enhancement mentioned in the mail , i dont have any
clue on how to proceed and that makes it difficult. Probably a note
atleast on what to be tested could obviously make a difference and
that atlteast should be mandatory i feel.

Cheers,
Balaji


On 5/29/08, Paul Howarth <paul@city-fan.org> wrote:
> "G" wrote:
>
> > Hi
> >
> > I got the following mail from Fedora updates. It says "The following
> > package has been moved to stable from testing". The Karma value
> > corresponding to this package is still zero (mentioned in the below
> > thread). Correct me if i am wrong, if the value reaches 3 its moved to
> > stable, thats how i understood it. I gave a comment for that package
> > that i am not able to test it because i was not aware what needs to be
> > tested for that enhancement.
> >
> > Apart from this i ve an other problem. Suggestions and Comments
> > Welcome for this problem .
> > I browse through the Fedora Updates repository to start testing
> > packages which are under the fedora testing branch, but for some of
> > the packages, i see that its given as an enhancement (like the below
> > one) but i am not able to go ahead testing it because it does not
> > specifiy whats the enhnacement is about. I did notice that there are
> > some bug fixes too made which has got the word "bugfix" but does not
> > map to a Bug ID i.e, the Bug ID is not mentioned in the updates. It
> > becomes diffficult to test those packages and give appropriate and
> > correct feedback.I shouldnt give back a report saying that it works or
> > it does not work which might be a wrong test result because i might be
> > testing something but the fix would be for something else.
> >
> > I would really appreciate if you all could help me with a suggestion
> > on this. I went a step ahead by raising a ticket in the bodhi system
> > so that we could have a field in the updates system where in when a
> > packager uploads the packages, a mandatory field on whats fixed if its
> > a bug fix could be stated and if its an enhanement , a small note on
> > what the enhancement is. Will this suggestion work ?
> >
> > This would really help people testing packages from the bodhi
> > repository and thereby make Fedora a real rock solid distro.
> >
> > Thanks for reading this . Hope people don't mistake me for this
> >
>
> Often the bugs or enhancements come directly from upstream and not as a
> result of tickets in Fedora's bugzilla. Sometimes there's not even an entry
> in the upstream bug tracker either, so it's not always possible to provide
> such references.
>
> Having said that, I see many updates with no explanatory notes to say what
> the bug or enhancement is, and in the case where there's no ticket to refer
> to I think the notes can fill the gap quite well.
>
> Paul.
>
> --
> fedora-devel-list mailing list
> fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
>

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 05-29-2008, 09:55 AM
Till Maas
 
Default Suggestion with respect to the Fedora Update System

On Thu May 29 2008, "G" wrote:

> If you take the enhancement mentioned in the mail , i dont have any
> clue on how to proceed and that makes it difficult. Probably a note
> atleast on what to be tested could obviously make a difference and
> that atlteast should be mandatory i feel.

Often it will be enough just to use the application a little to provide
feedback, e.g. as long as the application does not crash or corrupt some
data, then the update is good enough most of the times imho.

Regards,
Till
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 05-29-2008, 10:05 AM
""G""
 
Default Suggestion with respect to the Fedora Update System

> > If you take the enhancement mentioned in the mail , i dont have any
> > clue on how to proceed and that makes it difficult. Probably a note
> > atleast on what to be tested could obviously make a difference and
> > that atlteast should be mandatory i feel.

Ok but for some packages some testers have responded saying "It works
for me " some people have told it does not work me " . If you look at
these 2 statements, its contradicting, thats point one and the next
one is "It" is still undefined for other testers . My suggestion is
why cannot we define "It" as a test case or an enhancement atleast. I
sincerely feel that it would make a big difference.

Probably we could review our updates system and try adding a field
which gives more info.I also strongly feel that it would help our
contributors in a real positive way.


Cheers,
Balaji


On 5/29/08, Till Maas <opensource@till.name> wrote:
> On Thu May 29 2008, "G" wrote:
>
> > If you take the enhancement mentioned in the mail , i dont have any
> > clue on how to proceed and that makes it difficult. Probably a note
> > atleast on what to be tested could obviously make a difference and
> > that atlteast should be mandatory i feel.
>
>
> Often it will be enough just to use the application a little to provide
> feedback, e.g. as long as the application does not crash or corrupt some
> data, then the update is good enough most of the times imho.
>
> Regards,
>
> Till
>
> --
> fedora-devel-list mailing list
> fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
>
>

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 05-29-2008, 10:15 AM
Till Maas
 
Default Suggestion with respect to the Fedora Update System

On Thu May 29 2008, "G" wrote:

> Ok but for some packages some testers have responded saying "It works
> for me " some people have told it does not work me " . If you look at
> these 2 statements, its contradicting, thats point one and the next
> one is "It" is still undefined for other testers . My suggestion is
> why cannot we define "It" as a test case or an enhancement atleast. I
> sincerely feel that it would make a big difference.
> Probably we could review our updates system and try adding a field
> which gives more info.I also strongly feel that it would help our
> contributors in a real positive way.

Imho everytime some package receives bad karma, it needs to be explained what
did not work, otherwise nobody can fix it. For good karma, imho the testcases
could be better collected somewhere else than in each update, because they
will not differ much for each release, e.g. for a yum update one would always
check whether update/install/remove works.

Regards,
Till
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 05-29-2008, 10:59 AM
""G""
 
Default Suggestion with respect to the Fedora Update System

> Imho everytime some package receives bad karma, it needs to be explained what
> did not work, otherwise nobody can fix it. For good karma, imho the testcases
> could be better collected somewhere else than in each update, because they
> will not differ much for each release, e.g. for a yum update one would always
> check whether update/install/remove works.

For bugs which does not have any Bug ID tagged and for an enhancement
for which there is no note written about the enhancement, should i
take this approach of just installing the package, check whether the
basic application works and it does not corrupt any other stuff and
inform it works ? or should i do something more than this and yeah
documenting it somewhere should be fine , there should be some
databasse we need that helps as a reference. This is mandatory

Cheers
Balaji

On 5/29/08, Till Maas <opensource@till.name> wrote:
> On Thu May 29 2008, "G" wrote:
>
>
> > Ok but for some packages some testers have responded saying "It works
> > for me " some people have told it does not work me " . If you look at
> > these 2 statements, its contradicting, thats point one and the next
> > one is "It" is still undefined for other testers . My suggestion is
> > why cannot we define "It" as a test case or an enhancement atleast. I
> > sincerely feel that it would make a big difference.
> > Probably we could review our updates system and try adding a field
> > which gives more info.I also strongly feel that it would help our
> > contributors in a real positive way.
>
>
> Imho everytime some package receives bad karma, it needs to be explained what
> did not work, otherwise nobody can fix it. For good karma, imho the testcases
> could be better collected somewhere else than in each update, because they
> will not differ much for each release, e.g. for a yum update one would always
> check whether update/install/remove works.
>
> Regards,
>
> Till
>
> --
> fedora-devel-list mailing list
> fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
>
>

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 05-29-2008, 03:05 PM
Till Maas
 
Default Suggestion with respect to the Fedora Update System

On Thu May 29 2008, "G" wrote:

> For bugs which does not have any Bug ID tagged and for an enhancement
> for which there is no note written about the enhancement, should i
> take this approach of just installing the package, check whether the
> basic application works and it does not corrupt any other stuff and
> inform it works ? or should i do something more than this and yeah

There is no real policy about this, therefore I say checking the basics is
enough for now. You can also note this in the comment.

> documenting it somewhere should be fine , there should be some
> databasse we need that helps as a reference. This is mandatory

You can just start and try to create some reference for some packages you are
interested and join the QA-Sig, i.e. contact the people listed here:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/QA

Maybe you can together create a framework / procedures to document the test
cases and assign them to testers. Also you can ask on the Fedora testing
list:
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list

Regards,
Till
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 05-29-2008, 08:13 PM
Kevin Kofler
 
Default Suggestion with respect to the Fedora Update System

"G" <balajig81 <at> gmail.com> writes:
> Correct me if i am wrong, if the value reaches 3 its moved to
> stable, thats how i understood it.

The maintainer can request a push to stable whenever he/she wants, even if the
karma is at -1000. The +3 threshold is only the threshold at which Bodhi will
automatically request a push to stable. Most pushes to stable are requested
manually because otherwise we'd wait forever for the +3 karma.

Kevin Kofler

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 05-29-2008, 08:28 PM
"Jeff Spaleta"
 
Default Suggestion with respect to the Fedora Update System

On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 12:13 PM, Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler@chello.at> wrote:
> The maintainer can request a push to stable whenever he/she wants, even if the
> karma is at -1000. The +3 threshold is only the threshold at which Bodhi will
> automatically request a push to stable. Most pushes to stable are requested
> manually because otherwise we'd wait forever for the +3 karma.

I am of the humble opinion, that we aren't going to see more users
engage in specific package testing, unless we have a clientside tool
which can inform users of the availability of the update in a way that
encourages them to use bodhi for testing updates after they are
installed. It's a really tough ui problem.

Or to put it another way...with updates-testing enabled I don't easily
know which packages are from updates-testing without making special
effort to determine it. Unless I notice breakage, bodhi karma pushes
from me probably aren't going to happen for most updates-testing
packages i pull down. I am probably not alone. If the packaging UI
remind me as to which packages I have installed were from
updates-testing and which ones I have yet commented on, that would be
an immense help in encouraging me to respond in a timely fashion and
send in positive karma.

-jef

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 01:30 PM.

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