On Mon, 2010-11-01 at 02:18 +0100, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
Kevin, could you *please* not word things like that? There's just no
need for it.
I already wrote this to -test a couple of days ago:
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2010-October/095135.html
and we're
On Mon, 2010-11-01 at 03:54 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
There's exactly one constructive thing to do, it's repealing this set of
policies (Critical Path and Update Acceptance Criteria) in its entirety.
An update should go stable when the maintainer says so, karma should be
purely
On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 5:08 PM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
Saying 'oh dear, this might not work, we'd better not try' is rarely a
good approach, IMHO. It's better to try things, with the proviso that
you accept when they aren't working and withdraw or modify them.
I would agree
Adam Williamson píše v Po 01. 11. 2010 v 10:08 -0700:
We designed a policy,
put it into effect, now we're observing how well it works and we can
modify its implementation on the fly. It doesn't need to be done in an
adversarial spirit.
Given that _this exact scenario_ was repeatedly
On Mon, 2010-11-01 at 18:29 +0100, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
On the other hand, other scenarios were also brought up, which have not
come to pass - for instance, the same thing happening to Fedora 13 or
Fedora 14. If we had simply accepted the predictions of doom and not
implemented the
Adam Williamson píše v Po 01. 11. 2010 v 10:39 -0700:
On Mon, 2010-11-01 at 18:29 +0100, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
It's better to try things, with the proviso that
you accept when they aren't working and withdraw or modify them.
It's even better not to dismiss known problems with the policy,
On Mon, 2010-11-01 at 18:51 +0100, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
Sorry, but characterizing it as a 'known problem' is misleading. It's
easy to forecast failure, and you'll likely always be correct in *some*
cases if you forecast enough failures. Only if you precisely forecast
only the failures
Adam Williamson píše v Po 01. 11. 2010 v 10:55 -0700:
On Mon, 2010-11-01 at 18:51 +0100, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
Sorry, but characterizing it as a 'known problem' is misleading. It's
easy to forecast failure, and you'll likely always be correct in *some*
cases if you forecast enough
Adam Williamson wrote:
On the other hand, other scenarios were also brought up, which have not
come to pass - for instance, the same thing happening to Fedora 13 or
Fedora 14.
Nonsense. We just do not have enough evidence yet to show such things
happening for F13 and F14. They CAN, and IMHO
Adam Williamson wrote:
The policies prevented us from shipping a number of completely broken
updates, which is exactly what they were intended to do. I don't have a
command handy to do a search for rejected proposed critpath updates for
F14, but if you figure it out, you can see the precise
On Mon, 01 Nov 2010 19:26:43 +0100
Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote:
They also let several completely broken updates through and then
delayed the FIXES for those updates, exactly as I had been warning
about all the time.
Cite(s)?
For example, my firstboot update which was required
mån 2010-11-01 klockan 10:09 -0700 skrev Adam Williamson:
I disagree. The evidence you cite does not support this conclusion. We
implemented the policies for three releases. There are significant
problems with one release. This does not justify the conclusion that the
policies should be
On Mon, 2010-11-01 at 22:54 +0100, Henrik Nordström wrote:
mån 2010-11-01 klockan 10:09 -0700 skrev Adam Williamson:
I disagree. The evidence you cite does not support this conclusion. We
implemented the policies for three releases. There are significant
problems with one release. This
mån 2010-11-01 klockan 15:12 -0700 skrev Adam Williamson:
This is a reasonable modification of the idea that an update should only
require karma for one release (which would be nice if it were true but
unfortunately isn't). In practice, though, there isn't much wiggle room
for requiring
On Sun, 31 Oct 2010 04:37:38 +0100, Kevin wrote:
Martin Stransky wrote:
there's a new Firefox update waiting in Bodhi and we can't push it to
stable because of new rules. We recommend you to update to it ASAP as it
fixes a public critical 0day vulnerability
On Sun, 2010-10-31 at 04:37 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Martin Stransky wrote:
there's a new Firefox update waiting in Bodhi and we can't push it to
stable because of new rules. We recommend you to update to it ASAP as it
fixes a public critical 0day vulnerability
Adam Williamson píše v Ne 31. 10. 2010 v 18:06 -0700:
On Sun, 2010-10-31 at 04:37 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Yet another blatant example of
failure of the Update Acceptance Criteria, needlessly exposing our users to
critical vulnerabilities.
Kevin, could you *please* not word things
Adam Williamson wrote:
I already wrote this to -test a couple of days ago:
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2010-October/095135.html
and we're discussing it there. I think the thread demonstrates things
tend to go much more constructively if you avoid throwing words like
Martin Stransky wrote:
there's a new Firefox update waiting in Bodhi and we can't push it to
stable because of new rules. We recommend you to update to it ASAP as it
fixes a public critical 0day vulnerability
(https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=607222).
Looks like the F13 build got
19 matches
Mail list logo
