On Tue, 2010-07-13 at 16:00 -0400, Luke Macken wrote:
> > I've asked Luke to comment here and your parent post about how things
> > work, as I would love to know too. ;)
>
> Right now for a critical path update to gain approval, it must have a
> net karma of at least 2, including a +1 from a pro
On 07/06/2010 12:15 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Sat, 03 Jul 2010 19:55:27 +0200
> Till Maas wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jul 02, 2010 at 10:33:04PM +0200, Till Maas wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jul 02, 2010 at 12:48:43PM -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>>>
I have updated the page.
Does it look clear now? Re
Michael Schwendt wrote:
> One can quickly see that several (if not many) of them are due
> to orphans/retired packages in Fedora 12. And due to violated upgrade
> paths (e.g. compat-db):
That just proves that we should avoid retiring packages, but try to keep
them alive as long as we can, even if
On Sun, 2010-07-04 at 17:27 +0200, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 4, 2010 at 1:27 PM, Till Maas wrote:
> > On Sun, Jul 04, 2010 at 12:34:59PM +0200, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote:
> >> On Sun, Jul 4, 2010 at 10:34 AM, Till Maas wrote:
> >> > On Sun, Jul 04, 2010 at 01:32:16AM +0200, M
On Sat, 03 Jul 2010 19:55:27 +0200
Till Maas wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 02, 2010 at 10:33:04PM +0200, Till Maas wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 02, 2010 at 12:48:43PM -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> >
> > > I have updated the page.
> > >
> > > Does it look clear now? Re-wording or tweaks very welcome.
> > >
>
On Sun, Jul 04, 2010 at 04:47:19PM +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 14:40:20 +0200, Till wrote:
>
> > > It's fairly easy to verify other broken deps, too:
> > > http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/compat-db-4.7.25-3.fc13
> >
> > For me it is not that easy, because the infor
On Sun, Jul 4, 2010 at 1:27 PM, Till Maas wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 04, 2010 at 12:34:59PM +0200, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote:
>> On Sun, Jul 4, 2010 at 10:34 AM, Till Maas wrote:
>> > On Sun, Jul 04, 2010 at 01:32:16AM +0200, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote:
>> >
>> >> Could a flag be added to only out
On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 14:40:20 +0200, Till wrote:
> > It's fairly easy to verify other broken deps, too:
> > http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/compat-db-4.7.25-3.fc13
>
> For me it is not that easy, because the information is confusion (or not
> clearly arranged) or not directly accessible, e.
On Sun, Jul 04, 2010 at 02:06:08PM +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 13:32:14 +0200, Till wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Jul 04, 2010 at 12:31:57PM +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > > Broken deps in Fedora 13 + updates + updates-testing when
> > > also enabling Fedora 12 + updates + u
On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 13:32:14 +0200, Till wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 04, 2010 at 12:31:57PM +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > Broken deps in Fedora 13 + updates + updates-testing when
> > also enabling Fedora 12 + updates + updates-testing.
> >
> > One can quickly see that several (if not many) of t
On Sun, Jul 04, 2010 at 12:31:57PM +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> Broken deps in Fedora 13 + updates + updates-testing when
> also enabling Fedora 12 + updates + updates-testing.
>
> One can quickly see that several (if not many) of them are due
> to orphans/retired packages in Fedora 12. And
On Sun, Jul 04, 2010 at 12:34:59PM +0200, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 4, 2010 at 10:34 AM, Till Maas wrote:
> > On Sun, Jul 04, 2010 at 01:32:16AM +0200, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote:
> >
> >> Could a flag be added to only output the package names, so that I can
> >> pipe the outpu
On Sun, Jul 4, 2010 at 10:34 AM, Till Maas wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 04, 2010 at 01:32:16AM +0200, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote:
>
>> Could a flag be added to only output the package names, so that I can
>> pipe the output directly to yum? Or even better, have that flag
>> automatically cause the bodhi
Broken deps in Fedora 13 + updates + updates-testing when
also enabling Fedora 12 + updates + updates-testing.
One can quickly see that several (if not many) of them are due
to orphans/retired packages in Fedora 12. And due to violated upgrade
paths (e.g. compat-db):
Summary of broken packages
On Sun, Jul 04, 2010 at 01:32:16AM +0200, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote:
> Could a flag be added to only output the package names, so that I can
> pipe the output directly to yum? Or even better, have that flag
> automatically cause the bodhi client to invoke yum with
> --enable-repo=updates-testin
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 12:37 AM, Luke Macken wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I just pushed a version 0.7.5 of bodhi into production. This release
> contains the following notable changes:
>
> proventesters & strict critical path update handling
>
>
> Critica
On Sat, 2010-07-03 at 20:40 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > That only handles a subset of the 'broken dependencies' problem. We've
> > already had an example this year of a dependency issue the proposed
> > autoqa depcheck test wouldn't catch, and Michael's script didn't - the
> > nss-softokn
On Sat, 03 Jul 2010 10:05:07 -0700, Adam wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-07-02 at 18:24 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > On 07/02/2010 06:20 PM, Will Woods wrote:
> >
> >
> > > The main reasons we want to perform testing are things like: to avoid
> > > pushing updates with broken dependencies, or updates
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 12:50:53PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-06-30 at 15:37 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>
> > A suggestion: when critical path updates hit updates-testing, a
> > notification should go to both devel@lists.fedoraproject.org and
> > q...@lists.fedoraproject.org
On Fri, Jul 02, 2010 at 10:33:04PM +0200, Till Maas wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 02, 2010 at 12:48:43PM -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>
> > I have updated the page.
> >
> > Does it look clear now? Re-wording or tweaks very welcome.
> >
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_update_acceptance_criteria
On Fri, 2010-07-02 at 18:24 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 07/02/2010 06:20 PM, Will Woods wrote:
>
>
> > The main reasons we want to perform testing are things like: to avoid
> > pushing updates with broken dependencies, or updates that cause serious
> > regressions requiring manual intervent
Adam Miller wrote:
> If there are any discrepancy with the proventesters critpath policy then
> please feel free to file a ticket with FESCo and allow our elected
> officials decide the fate of this.
There isn't any such discrepancy, it's the policy which is broken and FESCo
which refuses to unde
If there are any discrepancy with the proventesters critpath policy then
please feel free to file a ticket with FESCo and allow our elected officials
decide the fate of this.
-AdamM (From Android)
On Jul 2, 2010 8:16 PM, "Kevin Kofler" wrote:
Will Woods wrote:
> The main reasons we want to perf
Will Woods wrote:
> The main reasons we want to perform testing are things like: to avoid
> pushing updates with broken dependencies
The right way to prevent that is to get AutoQA completed, which will, if it
works as intended, automatically detect and throw out updates with broken
dependencies
On Fri, Jul 02, 2010 at 12:48:43PM -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> I have updated the page.
>
> Does it look clear now? Re-wording or tweaks very welcome.
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_update_acceptance_criteria
Btw. does Bodhi really work the way it is said there? What happens if
th
On Fri, Jul 02, 2010 at 12:48:43PM -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 20:27:27 +0200
> Till Maas wrote:
> >Also they are about the "important packages",
> > which is a subset of critical path.
>
> Superset. :) In any case, the items mentioned there should be
> implemented. Bodhi ca
On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 20:27:27 +0200
Till Maas wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 02:48:26PM -0400, Luke Macken wrote:
>
> > For critical path updates to be approved for pushing to the stable
> > repository, they now require a minimum karma of 2, consisting of a
> > +1 from a single proventester, an
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 7/2/10 11:27 AM, Till Maas wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 02:48:26PM -0400, Luke Macken wrote:
>
>> For critical path updates to be approved for pushing to the stable
>> repository, they now require a minimum karma of 2, consisting of a +1
>> fro
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 02:48:26PM -0400, Luke Macken wrote:
> For critical path updates to be approved for pushing to the stable
> repository, they now require a minimum karma of 2, consisting of a +1
> from a single proventester, and a +1 from another authenticated user.
I am just wondering, is
On 07/02/2010 06:20 PM, Will Woods wrote:
> The main reasons we want to perform testing are things like: to avoid
> pushing updates with broken dependencies, or updates that cause serious
> regressions requiring manual intervention / emergency update
> replacements. That sort of thing.
>
Should b
On Thu, 2010-07-01 at 06:33 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Fedora Legacy has shown how well this works… not!
>
> I completely agree with Ralf Corsepius and Tom Lane on this subject: this
> policy is very unhelpful, and applying it to security updates is just
> totally insane. We're going to see m
On Thu, Jul 01, 2010 at 03:13:55PM -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On 7/1/10 2:55 PM, Till Maas wrote:
> > But I guess somehow it boils down to
> > "the majority wants that other people to work for them", which might
> > even be true. But in a FOSS community I doubt it is very healthy to
> > follow t
On Thu, 2010-07-01 at 11:48 +0200, Till Maas wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 01, 2010 at 05:23:06PM +1000, Dave Airlie wrote:
> > On Thu, 2010-07-01 at 07:00 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > > Dave Airlie wrote:
> > > > So in your mind, there is a majority of people on your side, but they
> > > > are just too l
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 7/1/10 2:55 PM, Till Maas wrote:
> But I guess somehow it boils down to
> "the majority wants that other people to work for them", which might
> even be true. But in a FOSS community I doubt it is very healthy to
> follow this too much.
>
I bet if
On Thu, Jul 01, 2010 at 02:13:59PM -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On 7/1/10 2:48 AM, Till Maas wrote:
> > How do you know who is a minority and who is not? I still wonder why
> > there are so many claims that the majority of Fedora maintainers or
> > users want to manually test all updates, but stil
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 7/1/10 2:48 AM, Till Maas wrote:
> How do you know who is a minority and who is not? I still wonder why
> there are so many claims that the majority of Fedora maintainers or
> users want to manually test all updates, but still the majority is not
>
On 07/01/2010 03:38 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 18:38:03 -0400
> Tom Lane wrote:
>
>> I see that libtiff.fc13 and libpng.fc13 are now showing "critical path
>> approved", for which I thank those who did the work.
>
> Thanks. ;)
>
>> I remain a bit
>> unclear about a couple of th
On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 18:38:03 -0400
Tom Lane wrote:
> I see that libtiff.fc13 and libpng.fc13 are now showing "critical path
> approved", for which I thank those who did the work.
Thanks. ;)
> I remain a bit
> unclear about a couple of things:
>
> 1. Bodhi is showing both packages as request
On Thu, 2010-07-01 at 01:26 -0400, Luke Macken wrote:
> On 07/01/2010 12:47 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > Jesse Keating wrote:
> >> There is a slight wrinkle in that right now, the bodhi code will
> >> automatically request a push of an item that reaches this karma threshold,
> >> and I don't believe
On Wed, 2010-06-30 at 18:38 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> 2. libtiff.fc12 and libpng.fc12 are still lonely with zero karma. Is the
> restrictive policy in force for F-12 too?
As far as I'm aware, no. We're starting at F-13.
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adam
On Thu, 2010-07-01 at 06:29 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Adam Williamson wrote:
> > ...or convince enough others of your position that they will vote for
> > the candidates you favour in our leadership elections. Since there've
> > been several of these since you first stated you don't approve of
>
On Thu, 2010-07-01 at 12:06 +0200, Till Maas wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 01, 2010 at 12:31:06AM -0400, James Antill wrote:
> > I thought the idea was that critpath packages would be in a critpath
> > group in comps?
>
> I just looked and there are two such groups:
> critical-path-base
> critical-path-gn
Once upon a time, Kevin Kofler said:
> No. It means there haven't been enough such candidates. People did vote for
> me. But alone against 8 people who didn't agree with me, I wasn't able to
> achieve anything.
>
> If you give people ballots with only Evil Dictator on them, of course Evil
> Di
On Thu, Jul 01, 2010 at 12:31:06AM -0400, James Antill wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-07-01 at 00:20 +0200, Till Maas wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 12:50:53PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > > You can already view all pending critpath updates in Bodhi's web
> > > interface and command line client, as
On Thu, Jul 01, 2010 at 05:23:06PM +1000, Dave Airlie wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-07-01 at 07:00 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > Dave Airlie wrote:
> > > So in your mind, there is a majority of people on your side, but they
> > > are just too lazy to stand for election and take over the board?
> >
> > s/
On Thu, 2010-07-01 at 07:00 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Dave Airlie wrote:
> > So in your mind, there is a majority of people on your side, but they
> > are just too lazy to stand for election and take over the board?
>
> s/too lazy/too busy doing actual work/
> (as opposed to wasting their time
On 07/01/2010 12:47 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Jesse Keating wrote:
>> There is a slight wrinkle in that right now, the bodhi code will
>> automatically request a push of an item that reaches this karma threshold,
>> and I don't believe there is a way yet to force it to wait for even
>> greater amou
Dave Airlie wrote:
> So in your mind, there is a majority of people on your side, but they
> are just too lazy to stand for election and take over the board?
s/too lazy/too busy doing actual work/
(as opposed to wasting their time with politics or bureaucracy)
Have you noticed that all the people
I wrote:
> Why two? The policy FESCo voted said one (plus one other community member,
> giving a total karma of 2).
Nevermind, I just noticed the later mail from Luke correcting this.
Kevin Kofler
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailma
Tom Lane wrote:
> The right way to go about this is to ramp up proventester manpower
> first before making it a required gating factor.
+1
Why was this implemented BEFORE proventester requests were approved? If we
don't even have the "mentoring" process defined, then that should have
happened b
Jesse Keating wrote:
> There is a slight wrinkle in that right now, the bodhi code will
> automatically request a push of an item that reaches this karma threshold,
> and I don't believe there is a way yet to force it to wait for even
> greater amounts of karma. I believe that fine grained tuning
Adam Williamson wrote:
> I'd remind you that we've actually already had a period of several weeks
> where this system was active - before the F13 release, when critpath
> package pushes required feedback from a member of qa or releng - and
> that worked out fine, the packages got pushed and we did
Jesse Keating wrote:
> One of the big reasons the manpower was "scarce" is we did not have a
> proper system to locate, train, and promote new people into this
> "manpower". The QA team has made great strides into fixing that and we
> do now have a process in place, and a good stream of incoming p
On Thu, 2010-07-01 at 06:29 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Adam Williamson wrote:
> > ...or convince enough others of your position that they will vote for
> > the candidates you favour in our leadership elections. Since there've
> > been several of these since you first stated you don't approve of
>
On Thu, 2010-07-01 at 00:20 +0200, Till Maas wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 12:50:53PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > You can already view all pending critpath updates in Bodhi's web
> > interface and command line client, as per Luke's initial mail.
>
> But a yum enhancement or plugin to rest
Adam Williamson wrote:
> ...or convince enough others of your position that they will vote for
> the candidates you favour in our leadership elections. Since there've
> been several of these since you first stated you don't approve of
> Fedora's leadership, it seems the electorate doesn't agree wit
Luke Macken wrote:
> Critical path package[0] updates now require positive karma from two
> proventesters[1], and a single +1 from one other community member.
Why two? The policy FESCo voted said one (plus one other community member,
giving a total karma of 2).
Kevin Kofler
--
devel ma
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 6/30/10 3:38 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Jesse Keating writes:
>> On 6/30/10 12:29 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> I mentioned libtiff in my first comment in this thread. The other one
>>> is libpng. But in any case, are maintainers supposed to have to scare
>
Jesse Keating writes:
> On 6/30/10 12:29 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I mentioned libtiff in my first comment in this thread. The other one
>> is libpng. But in any case, are maintainers supposed to have to scare
>> up testers on their own? Especially for packages that are supposed to
>> be so centra
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 12:50:53PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-06-30 at 15:37 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>
> > A suggestion: when critical path updates hit updates-testing, a
> > notification should go to both devel@lists.fedoraproject.org and
> > q...@lists.fedoraproject.org
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 6/30/10 12:29 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Will Woods writes:
>> On Wed, 2010-06-30 at 15:04 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Yes I can. I have two critpath packages that are in testing with
>>> security bugs, both pretty small and easy to test, and both still
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 06/30/2010 03:52 PM, Sven Lankes wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 03:37:11PM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>
>> A suggestion: when critical path updates hit updates-testing, a
>> notification should go to both devel@lists.fedoraproject.org and
>>
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 03:37:11PM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> A suggestion: when critical path updates hit updates-testing, a
> notification should go to both devel@lists.fedoraproject.org and
> q...@lists.fedoraproject.org to encourage testing.
The qa-list has already lost a lot of it's r
On Wed, 2010-06-30 at 15:37 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> A suggestion: when critical path updates hit updates-testing, a
> notification should go to both devel@lists.fedoraproject.org and
> q...@lists.fedoraproject.org to encourage testing.
This would probably be too high traffic. We're work
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 8:37 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 06/30/2010 03:29 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Will Woods writes:
>>> On Wed, 2010-06-30 at 15:04 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Yes I can. I have two critpath packages that are in testing wi
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 8:29 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Will Woods writes:
>> On Wed, 2010-06-30 at 15:04 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Yes I can. I have two critpath packages that are in testing with
>>> security bugs, both pretty small and easy to test, and both still have
>>> karma zero. That seems
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 06/30/2010 03:29 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Will Woods writes:
>> On Wed, 2010-06-30 at 15:04 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Yes I can. I have two critpath packages that are in testing with
>>> security bugs, both pretty small and easy to test, and both st
Will Woods writes:
> On Wed, 2010-06-30 at 15:04 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Yes I can. I have two critpath packages that are in testing with
>> security bugs, both pretty small and easy to test, and both still have
>> karma zero. That seems to me to be adequate proof that there's not the
>> manpo
On Wed, 2010-06-30 at 15:08 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Will Woods writes:
> > Is it really so hard for you to find someone to test the thing? If so,
> > maybe you could use the assistance of a co-maintainer?
>
> Huh? I don't need a co-maintainer, I need testers.
I was suggesting that - since you
On Wed, 2010-06-30 at 15:04 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Adam Williamson writes:
> > On Wed, 2010-06-30 at 11:35 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> The proposed policy might be workable if we had a surplus of
> >> proventester manpower available, but we obviously have not got that.
>
> > See above, you cann
Michael Cronenworth writes:
> Should the bodhi whine mail be CC'd to the test mailing list in a
> digest-type mail like the updates-testing pushes?
+1. As is, old-package whine mail is going to be directed to somebody
who *isn't allowed to do anything about it*. A more dysfunctional
system is
Will Woods writes:
> Is it really so hard for you to find someone to test the thing? If so,
> maybe you could use the assistance of a co-maintainer?
Huh? I don't need a co-maintainer, I need testers. proventesters,
even. Or are you suggesting that the way to deal with this is to
have two maint
On Wed, 2010-06-30 at 15:04 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Adam Williamson writes:
> > On Wed, 2010-06-30 at 11:35 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> The proposed policy might be workable if we had a surplus of
> >> proventester manpower available, but we obviously have not got that.
>
> > See above, you cann
Adam Williamson writes:
> On Wed, 2010-06-30 at 11:35 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> The proposed policy might be workable if we had a surplus of
>> proventester manpower available, but we obviously have not got that.
> See above, you cannot judge this on current experience.
Yes I can. I have two cr
On Tue, 2010-06-29 at 18:37 -0400, Luke Macken wrote:
> proventesters & strict critical path update handling
>
>
> Critical path package[0] updates now require positive karma from two
> proventesters[1], and a single +1 from one other community
On Wed, 2010-06-30 at 11:25 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
> >> Well yes, you always can be relied upon for the cheery optimistic
> >> outlook :)
> >
> > If I were perceiving competence in Fedora's leadership, my comments
> > would sound differently.
>
> You're welcome to try your hand at leadershi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 6/30/10 11:09 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 06/30/2010 07:58 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> On 6/30/10 10:48 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>>> My perception is: "marketing" has directed into a directi
On Wed, 2010-06-30 at 11:35 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Luke Macken writes:
> > Critical path package[0] updates now require positive karma from two
> > proventesters[1], and a single +1 from one other community member.
>
> Even for security updates? My experience says that this requirement
> will
On 06/30/2010 07:58 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 6/30/10 10:48 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>> My perception is: "marketing" has directed into a direction which drains
>> away man-power into an uncertain process whose only immediate effect is
>> bur
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 6/30/10 10:48 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> My perception is: "marketing" has directed into a direction which drains
> away man-power into an uncertain process whose only immediate effect is
> bureaucracy, whose long term outcome is uncertain and who
On 06/30/2010 06:34 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 6/30/10 9:31 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>> On 06/30/2010 06:18 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2010-06-30 at 11:35 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>>
The proposed policy might be workable if we h
On Wed, 2010-06-30 at 11:35 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> I would be willing to accept *negative* karma from more than
> one proventester as being an override. But it is utterly unacceptable
> for inaction to represent a veto.
I would argue that it's utterly unacceptable for untested code to be
pushed
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 6/30/10 9:31 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 06/30/2010 06:18 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
>> On Wed, 2010-06-30 at 11:35 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>
>>> The proposed policy might be workable if we had a surplus of
>>> proventester manpower available, bu
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 11:35:17AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>Luke Macken writes:
>> Critical path package[0] updates now require positive karma from two
>> proventesters[1], and a single +1 from one other community member.
>
>Even for security updates? My experience says that this requirement
>will
On 06/30/2010 06:18 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-06-30 at 11:35 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> The proposed policy might be workable if we had a surplus of
>> proventester manpower available, but we obviously have not got that.
And you think re-allocating the already scarce manpower to thi
On Wed, 2010-06-30 at 11:35 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Luke Macken writes:
> > Critical path package[0] updates now require positive karma from two
> > proventesters[1], and a single +1 from one other community member.
>
> Even for security updates? My experience says that this requirement
> will
Tom Lane wrote:
> Even for security updates? My experience says that this requirement
> will prevent me from*ever* pushing updates. Case in point: libtiff,
> which is a critpath package, has been in testing with a significant
> security update for a week now. Its karma is still zero. When I ge
Luke Macken writes:
> Critical path package[0] updates now require positive karma from two
> proventesters[1], and a single +1 from one other community member.
Even for security updates? My experience says that this requirement
will prevent me from *ever* pushing updates. Case in point: libtiff
On 06/29/2010 06:37 PM, Luke Macken wrote:
> You can get a list of critical path updates using the bodhi web interface:
>
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/critpath?release=F13untested=True
Oops, broken link. Sorry about that.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/critpath?release=
89 matches
Mail list logo
