Re: [HALL-MONITORED] Update threads are now hall-monitored
Hi, On 03/03/2010 10:30 PM, Doug Ledford wrote: On 03/03/2010 02:27 PM, Tom spot Callaway wrote: Okay. This has gone on long enough. The signal is gone from the following threads: The signal is not entirely gone, although it is getting weaker. * FESCo wants to ban direct stable pushes in Bodhi (urgent call forfeedback) * Worthless updates * Refining the update queues/process Accordingly, I'm marking those threads as Hall-Monitored. Please stop posting in them. If you have a concrete suggestion on how to improve Fedora updates, please write it in a wiki page, open a FESCo trac ticket, and they will consider it. The problem is that having a concrete suggestion of how to improve fedora updates requires knowing whether we want a more stable update cycle or a more semi-rolling update style. It would be easy for us to carte blanch hand down an edict on this, but that would also be wrong. This is a community driven distribution, and by my count the number of people that stood up in favor of semi-rolling updates was not that different from the number of people that stood up for stable updates (I have something like 4 for semi-rolling and 6 for stable, but many people didn't make their preferences perfectly clear, and this count is from my admittedly worthless memory of those that were explicit in their desires). I think the whole stable update cycle versus semi-rolling update style is too black and white. For core packages / major desktop packages clearly a stable update cycle is the right thing to do. But for packages which are more nice packages, the right thing to do may vary. What for example for a package which is not only added recently to Fedora, but came into existence recently in general. There might be some new upstream releases there which are not bugfix only but still very good to have (think pre-alpha - alpha - beta steps). Another example against having a hardcoded stable update cycle is multiplayer games. In quite a few online gaming communities, most of the community moves over to the latest release once it is sanctioned stable by upstream. If the client - server version need to be in sync (which they often do because they need the exact same maps), then this means that our stable version in F-released might become worthless pretty quickly as there are no or very little stable version servers available to play on. Also some upstreams do much much better QA then others, or are in general not as fast moving as others. In these cases it might make sense to do a semi-rolling update style for these packages, even if the upstream releases are not purely bugfix releases. So I think in the end this should preferably be left to the maintainer. And if FESco decides that a stable update cycle is what we want, can they *please* make this a not one size does not fits all policy. I would like to see a split somewhere, say included in standard insert desktop environment here install, versus the rest. With less strict checks at the *tool* level for the rest ? The idea here is that the policy prescribes a stable update cycle, but leaves room for maintainers to make exceptions when they believe they have good reasons to do so, and that the tools (bodhi, autoqa) allow for maintainers for packages outside the core group to override the tool, without needing FESco / rel-eng permission first. Regards, Hans -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
[HALL-MONITORED] Update threads are now hall-monitored
Okay. This has gone on long enough. The signal is gone from the following threads: * FESCo wants to ban direct stable pushes in Bodhi (urgent call forfeedback) * Worthless updates * Refining the update queues/process Accordingly, I'm marking those threads as Hall-Monitored. Please stop posting in them. If you have a concrete suggestion on how to improve Fedora updates, please write it in a wiki page, open a FESCo trac ticket, and they will consider it. ~spot, Hall Monitor -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: [HALL-MONITORED] Update threads are now hall-monitored
On 03/03/2010 02:27 PM, Tom spot Callaway wrote: Okay. This has gone on long enough. The signal is gone from the following threads: The signal is not entirely gone, although it is getting weaker. * FESCo wants to ban direct stable pushes in Bodhi (urgent call forfeedback) * Worthless updates * Refining the update queues/process Accordingly, I'm marking those threads as Hall-Monitored. Please stop posting in them. If you have a concrete suggestion on how to improve Fedora updates, please write it in a wiki page, open a FESCo trac ticket, and they will consider it. The problem is that having a concrete suggestion of how to improve fedora updates requires knowing whether we want a more stable update cycle or a more semi-rolling update style. It would be easy for us to carte blanch hand down an edict on this, but that would also be wrong. This is a community driven distribution, and by my count the number of people that stood up in favor of semi-rolling updates was not that different from the number of people that stood up for stable updates (I have something like 4 for semi-rolling and 6 for stable, but many people didn't make their preferences perfectly clear, and this count is from my admittedly worthless memory of those that were explicit in their desires). So while I agree that some of the posts where people are simply attacking other people need to stop, I can't agree that this thread has reached a stage where it is advisable to stop constructive discussions. I would argue that it's necessary to continue constructive discussions in order to reach the stage where a wiki page and proposals makes sense. -- Doug Ledford dledf...@redhat.com GPG KeyID: CFBFF194 http://people.redhat.com/dledford Infiniband specific RPMs available at http://people.redhat.com/dledford/Infiniband signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: [HALL-MONITORED] Update threads are now hall-monitored
On Wed, 03 Mar 2010 22:39:44 +0100 nodata l...@nodata.co.uk wrote: What is hall monitored? https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Hall_Monitor_Policy signature.asc Description: PGP signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: [HALL-MONITORED] Update threads are now hall-monitored
On 03/03/2010 04:40 PM, Tom spot Callaway wrote: On 03/03/2010 04:30 PM, Doug Ledford wrote: So while I agree that some of the posts where people are simply attacking other people need to stop, I can't agree that this thread has reached a stage where it is advisable to stop constructive discussions. I would argue that it's necessary to continue constructive discussions in order to reach the stage where a wiki page and proposals makes sense. I would say that the next steps should be one (or more) of the following: * A proposal to adopt a more stable update cycle * A proposal to adopt a more semi-rolling update style * A hybrid proposal which deals with both cases If you would like to write a proposal on those items (or any other improvement related to updates management) and then start a new thread focused on constructive discussion and honing of said proposal, I would have no quarrel with it. Well, I *did* make a barebones proposal towards the third option in the thread in question, and I intended to work some more on it (in a constructive manner). But, I can put it in a new thread if you like. -- Doug Ledford dledf...@redhat.com GPG KeyID: CFBFF194 http://people.redhat.com/dledford Infiniband specific RPMs available at http://people.redhat.com/dledford/Infiniband signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: [HALL-MONITORED] Update threads are now hall-monitored
On 03/03/2010 04:44 PM, Doug Ledford wrote: Well, I *did* make a barebones proposal towards the third option in the thread in question, and I intended to work some more on it (in a constructive manner). But, I can put it in a new thread if you like. Please do so, it will hopefully focus the discussion. ~spot -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: [HALL-MONITORED] Update threads are now hall-monitored
On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 14:27 -0500, Tom spot Callaway wrote: Okay. This has gone on long enough. The signal is gone from the following threads: * FESCo wants to ban direct stable pushes in Bodhi (urgent call forfeedback) * Worthless updates * Refining the update queues/process Accordingly, I'm marking those threads as Hall-Monitored. Please stop posting in them. If you have a concrete suggestion on how to improve Fedora updates, please write it in a wiki page, open a FESCo trac ticket, and they will consider it. sorry for a few further posts in 'worthless updates', I had a search filter on, so didn't see this post. -- 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
Re: [HALL-MONITORED] Update threads are now hall-monitored
On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 04:44:55PM -0500, Doug Ledford wrote: On 03/03/2010 04:40 PM, Tom spot Callaway wrote: On 03/03/2010 04:30 PM, Doug Ledford wrote: So while I agree that some of the posts where people are simply attacking other people need to stop, I can't agree that this thread has reached a stage where it is advisable to stop constructive discussions. I would argue that it's necessary to continue constructive discussions in order to reach the stage where a wiki page and proposals makes sense. I would say that the next steps should be one (or more) of the following: * A proposal to adopt a more stable update cycle * A proposal to adopt a more semi-rolling update style * A hybrid proposal which deals with both cases If you would like to write a proposal on those items (or any other improvement related to updates management) and then start a new thread focused on constructive discussion and honing of said proposal, I would have no quarrel with it. Well, I *did* make a barebones proposal towards the third option in the thread in question, and I intended to work some more on it (in a constructive manner). But, I can put it in a new thread if you like. Note, you might find this useful in that: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Release_Lifecycle(draft) Attempt to define goals (semi-rolling vs QA'd [The more stable style]) as well as the various pieces that we can affect to implement those goals and: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Release_Lifecycle_Proposals Several people have made proposals which are listed here. I know of several others (for instance, jresnik's proposal for different F-Current and F-Current-1 update styles) and your own. -Toshio pgpBebR7MIJHT.pgp Description: PGP signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
