Re: bodhi 2 now live
On Tue, 25 Aug 2015 14:51:29 +0530 Parag Nemade panem...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, I kind of miss the overview of supported releases that was available in old version. It would be nice if this overview was part of the landing page with links to the release detail pages: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/releases/F23 This way one is immediately aware which releases are still supported or newly added. I have filed it today - https://github.com/fedora-infra/bodhi/issues/350 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/releases/ Has that info? It's just not currently linked anywhere obvious. kevin pgprPnp0uI7ku.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: bodhi 2 now live
On 08/20/2015 05:45 AM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: Greetings. After a longer than expected outage window, I'm happy to report that bodhi2 is now live in production at https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates or https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/ The web interface should be available and working for adding and managing updates and build root overrides as well as karma. The command line tools should be available tomorrow in repos. 'fedpkg update' should work provided you have the latest python-fedora (python-fedora-0.5.5-1). There will likely be oddities and bugs. Please file them in github so we can prioritize them and get them fixed up. https://github.com/fedora-infra/bodhi/issues A collection of known issues and more information can be found at: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Bodhi2 Thanks for your patience as we roll out this new bodhi version. kevin Hi, I kind of miss the overview of supported releases that was available in old version. It would be nice if this overview was part of the landing page with links to the release detail pages: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/releases/F23 This way one is immediately aware which releases are still supported or newly added. Cheers, -- Richard ABRT DevQA irc: impure_hate #fedora-devel, #abrt, #fedora-cs -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: bodhi 2 now live
Hi, On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 2:21 PM, Richard Marko rma...@fedoraproject.org wrote: On 08/20/2015 05:45 AM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: Greetings. After a longer than expected outage window, I'm happy to report that bodhi2 is now live in production at https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates or https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/ The web interface should be available and working for adding and managing updates and build root overrides as well as karma. The command line tools should be available tomorrow in repos. 'fedpkg update' should work provided you have the latest python-fedora (python-fedora-0.5.5-1). There will likely be oddities and bugs. Please file them in github so we can prioritize them and get them fixed up. https://github.com/fedora-infra/bodhi/issues A collection of known issues and more information can be found at: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Bodhi2 Thanks for your patience as we roll out this new bodhi version. kevin Hi, I kind of miss the overview of supported releases that was available in old version. It would be nice if this overview was part of the landing page with links to the release detail pages: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/releases/F23 This way one is immediately aware which releases are still supported or newly added. I have filed it today - https://github.com/fedora-infra/bodhi/issues/350 Regards, Parag. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: bodhi 2 now live
On 23/08/15 18:41 -0400, Neal Gompa wrote: On Sun, Aug 23, 2015 at 6:32 PM, Jonathan Wakely jwak...@redhat.com wrote: On 23/08/15 16:36 -0400, Rahul Sundaram wrote: Hi On Sun, Aug 23, 2015 at 4:23 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote: No, sorry, but that is not true. I wrote those update notes in the Bodhi 1 web interface, so of course I looked at the resulting formatting. Bodhi 1 interpreted that syntax as a list, not as a single paragraph. This is a change in Bodhi 2 (and IMHO, for the worse, though if there's some official Markdown spec that says it should be that way, meh…). Markdown has no official spec. The closest you can get is commonmark. Fairly sure, the current parsing is more correct. http://commonmark.org/ Some Markdown implementations require the blank line before the list (StackOverflow's does), but CommonMark doesn't: In CommonMark, a list can interrupt a paragraph. That is, no blank line is needed to separate a paragraph from a following list: http://spec.commonmark.org/0.21/#example-246 So the current parsing doesn't match CommonMark. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct The current parsing model seems to work the same way as most other Markdown enabled systems do (GitHub, BitBucket, Reddit, etc.), where an empty line is required just before a list or some other block to work. I always thought it was supposed to be that way, since it looks like that on Daring Fireball's spec http://daringfireball.net/projects/markdown/syntax.text, too. There's extensive discussion of it in the CommonMark spec. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Unable to submit update for F22 (was Re: bodhi 2 now live)
Hi, On Sun, Aug 23, 2015 at 11:03 AM, Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de wrote: On 08/21/2015 06:02 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 05:27:37 +0200 Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de wrote: Upstreams, yes, but not Fedora. Fedora should be self-hosted. Can you please define Fedora and self-hosted as you use them above? A domain 100 operated and owned by Fedora (rsp. RH) and covered by the Fedora CLA. Whether github is popular does not matter all. It's third party out of Fedora's control. What you are doing, means pushing Fedora users around, in what I consider very rude ways. Fedora is part of the larger open source comunity. Fedora Infrastructure uses 100% open source software. All irrelevant. Bohdi is just a tool used by Fedora, like any other arbitrary tool. I.e. I am not interested in getting involved in bodhi, I am just using the bodhi instance Fedora has deployed and I am expecting to have a way to contact the Fedora personnel to report bugs. Anyhow, for the last time: github is currently the perferred way to report bodhi2 bugs. And for illiterate: github a legitimate way for upstream, but is not a way, which is acceptable to Fedora users. You guys, need to learn to distinguish your roles as upstream and as maintainers of an installation - These are *not* identical. If you have some objection to them, you can file a fedorahosted ticket or infrastructure fedorahosted ticket. Also, I have been trying to file tickets on issues I see in mailing lists that aren't filed. I am close to filing a ticket to FESCO and/or the Board/Council, to request to revert to bodhi one - bodhi2 has proven to suffer from very ugly bugs and to be close to being unusable. I am sure moving to bodhi2 will have definitely some advantages that is why this move happened but I also don't see any usage document for bodhi2 before/when it went live. Also bodhi is really important service for Fedora so when its deployed on staging server for testing, testers should have been called at least to comment on any functionality/UI related problem. I have also seen developers have worked to fix/triage almost all the filed issues against bodhi2. If there are any major issues in bodhi2 then let's provide as much as input to them and they will try to quickly fix them. But as move has already happen let's use bodhi2 and not to go back. Regards, Parag -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: bodhi 2 now live
Mathieu Bridon wrote: In the case of Kevin's update, the problem is that markdown lists must have an empty new line before them, like so: A paragraph of text: * first item * second item Kevin, you used the following, which indeed the Markdown parser turns into a single paragraph: A paragraph of text: * first item * second item Thank you for the analysis (and now I know how to work around this regression), but: Bodhi 1 was already doing the same thing with such an input. No, sorry, but that is not true. I wrote those update notes in the Bodhi 1 web interface, so of course I looked at the resulting formatting. Bodhi 1 interpreted that syntax as a list, not as a single paragraph. This is a change in Bodhi 2 (and IMHO, for the worse, though if there's some official Markdown spec that says it should be that way, meh…). Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: bodhi 2 now live
Hi On Sun, Aug 23, 2015 at 4:23 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote: No, sorry, but that is not true. I wrote those update notes in the Bodhi 1 web interface, so of course I looked at the resulting formatting. Bodhi 1 interpreted that syntax as a list, not as a single paragraph. This is a change in Bodhi 2 (and IMHO, for the worse, though if there's some official Markdown spec that says it should be that way, meh…). Markdown has no official spec. The closest you can get is commonmark. Fairly sure, the current parsing is more correct. http://commonmark.org/ Rahul -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: bodhi 2 now live
Michael Catanzaro wrote: not sure about Apper Apper shows the raw text, it has no Markdown parser. Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: bodhi 2 now live
On 23/08/15 16:36 -0400, Rahul Sundaram wrote: Hi On Sun, Aug 23, 2015 at 4:23 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote: No, sorry, but that is not true. I wrote those update notes in the Bodhi 1 web interface, so of course I looked at the resulting formatting. Bodhi 1 interpreted that syntax as a list, not as a single paragraph. This is a change in Bodhi 2 (and IMHO, for the worse, though if there's some official Markdown spec that says it should be that way, meh…). Markdown has no official spec. The closest you can get is commonmark. Fairly sure, the current parsing is more correct. http://commonmark.org/ Some Markdown implementations require the blank line before the list (StackOverflow's does), but CommonMark doesn't: In CommonMark, a list can interrupt a paragraph. That is, no blank line is needed to separate a paragraph from a following list: http://spec.commonmark.org/0.21/#example-246 So the current parsing doesn't match CommonMark. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: bodhi 2 now live
On Sun, Aug 23, 2015 at 6:32 PM, Jonathan Wakely jwak...@redhat.com wrote: On 23/08/15 16:36 -0400, Rahul Sundaram wrote: Hi On Sun, Aug 23, 2015 at 4:23 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote: No, sorry, but that is not true. I wrote those update notes in the Bodhi 1 web interface, so of course I looked at the resulting formatting. Bodhi 1 interpreted that syntax as a list, not as a single paragraph. This is a change in Bodhi 2 (and IMHO, for the worse, though if there's some official Markdown spec that says it should be that way, meh…). Markdown has no official spec. The closest you can get is commonmark. Fairly sure, the current parsing is more correct. http://commonmark.org/ Some Markdown implementations require the blank line before the list (StackOverflow's does), but CommonMark doesn't: In CommonMark, a list can interrupt a paragraph. That is, no blank line is needed to separate a paragraph from a following list: http://spec.commonmark.org/0.21/#example-246 So the current parsing doesn't match CommonMark. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct The current parsing model seems to work the same way as most other Markdown enabled systems do (GitHub, BitBucket, Reddit, etc.), where an empty line is required just before a list or some other block to work. I always thought it was supposed to be that way, since it looks like that on Daring Fireball's spec http://daringfireball.net/projects/markdown/syntax.text, too. -- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth! -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: bodhi 2 now live
On Sun, 2015-08-23 at 22:23 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote: Mathieu Bridon wrote: In the case of Kevin's update, the problem is that markdown lists must have an empty new line before them, like so: A paragraph of text: * first item * second item Kevin, you used the following, which indeed the Markdown parser turns into a single paragraph: A paragraph of text: * first item * second item Thank you for the analysis (and now I know how to work around this regression), but: Bodhi 1 was already doing the same thing with such an input. No, sorry, but that is not true. I wrote those update notes in the Bodhi 1 web interface, so of course I looked at the resulting formatting. Bodhi 1 interpreted that syntax as a list, not as a single paragraph. So it seems I wrote that code so long ago that I misremembered. You are right, I has indeed added some special handling in Bodhi 1 to have lists work even without an empty line before them: https://github.com/fedora-infra/bodhi/blob/bodhi1-develop/bodhi/templat es/show.kid#L47-L48 This is a change in Bodhi 2 (and IMHO, for the worse, though if there's some official Markdown spec that says it should be that way, meh…). Markdown is extremely under-specified, so a lot is left up to implementations. In the case of lists, I can find no mention at all of surrounding text in the spec, it only talks about lists in complete isolation to other elements, as far as I can see: http://daringfireball.net/projects/markdown/syntax#list Which means that very often, Markdown implementations just do whatever the original implementation does, bugs and all. And sure enough, if you try using the online demo: http://daringfireball.net/projects/markdown/dingus You'll find it behaves the same way Bodhi 2 does. CommonMark is trying to improve this situation with a complete specification, but it isn't what we use in Bodhi 2 (yet?) If you really feel strongly about that empty newline, open a bug report asking for it. I guess we could just reuse the one-liner I had for Bodhi 1, or completely move to CommonMark, as it seems to allow what you want: http://spec.commonmark.org/0.21/#example-246 In any case, please open bug reports for anything you want in Bodhi 2, to make sure your feedback isn't lost in the archives of the mailing -list. -- Mathieu -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: bodhi 2 now live
2015-08-22 4:46 GMT+02:00 Christopher Meng i...@cicku.me: Occupying the moral high ground doesn't help as well. -- Yours sincerely, Christopher Meng If you want your bugs to be fixed, posting them on a list and ignoring the bug tracker doesn't work. And for people who don't want to go through github, the old trac is still open and reviewed by infra team: https://fedorahosted.org/bodhi/newticket For the rest, read the code of conduct. Regards, H. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: bodhi 2 now live
Am 22.08.2015 um 10:48 schrieb Haïkel: 2015-08-22 4:46 GMT+02:00 Christopher Meng i...@cicku.me: Occupying the moral high ground doesn't help as well. If you want your bugs to be fixed, posting them on a list and ignoring the bug tracker doesn't work. come on the bugtracker also don't work https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1226509#c5 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: bodhi 2 now live
2015-08-22 12:07 GMT+02:00 Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net: come on the bugtracker also don't work https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1226509#c5 Thanks for definitively killing this thread by posting something unrelated. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: bodhi 2 now live
Am 22.08.2015 um 12:20 schrieb Haïkel: 2015-08-22 12:07 GMT+02:00 Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net: come on the bugtracker also don't work https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1226509#c5 Thanks for definitively killing this thread by posting something unrelated like your accusing post without *any* quoting was something useful. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: bodhi 2 now live
-- Mathieu On Sat, 2015-08-22 at 19:27 -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote: FWIW I think the new version looks much nicer than the old one. Hopefully the issues will be ironed out. On Thu, 2015-08-20 at 17:48 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote: * The formatting of the update notes has changed in some ways (line breaks gone missing?), breaking my nicely formatted notes, e.g.: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/calamares-1.1.2-1.fc23 (The enumerations were turned into one paragraph with bogus italics.) This one's a feature I think: updates are already displayed to the user in markdown -- at least in GNOME Software, and I think even the obsolete GNOME Package Updater, and I think Muon as well? not sure about Apper -- so users are going to see your updates in italics no matter what. You'd be forgiven for not realizing this, since the web interface did not show this. That was a serious problem. Bodhi 1 did interpret the update notes as Markdown already in the web interface... for at least the past 5 years. Bodhi 2 does have some extended Markdown features, compared to Bodhi 1, but lists and italics were there from the start. In the case of Kevin's update, the problem is that markdown lists must have an empty new line before them, like so: A paragraph of text: * first item * second item Kevin, you used the following, which indeed the Markdown parser turns into a single paragraph: A paragraph of text: * first item * second item Bodhi 1 was already doing the same thing with such an input. -- Mathieu -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Unable to submit update for F22 (was Re: bodhi 2 now live)
On 08/21/2015 06:02 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 05:27:37 +0200 Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de wrote: Upstreams, yes, but not Fedora. Fedora should be self-hosted. Can you please define Fedora and self-hosted as you use them above? A domain 100 operated and owned by Fedora (rsp. RH) and covered by the Fedora CLA. Whether github is popular does not matter all. It's third party out of Fedora's control. What you are doing, means pushing Fedora users around, in what I consider very rude ways. Fedora is part of the larger open source comunity. Fedora Infrastructure uses 100% open source software. All irrelevant. Bohdi is just a tool used by Fedora, like any other arbitrary tool. I.e. I am not interested in getting involved in bodhi, I am just using the bodhi instance Fedora has deployed and I am expecting to have a way to contact the Fedora personnel to report bugs. Anyhow, for the last time: github is currently the perferred way to report bodhi2 bugs. And for illiterate: github a legitimate way for upstream, but is not a way, which is acceptable to Fedora users. You guys, need to learn to distinguish your roles as upstream and as maintainers of an installation - These are *not* identical. If you have some objection to them, you can file a fedorahosted ticket or infrastructure fedorahosted ticket. Also, I have been trying to file tickets on issues I see in mailing lists that aren't filed. I am close to filing a ticket to FESCO and/or the Board/Council, to request to revert to bodhi one - bodhi2 has proven to suffer from very ugly bugs and to be close to being unusable. Ralf -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: bodhi 2 now live
On Saturday, August 22, 2015, Haïkel hgue...@fedoraproject.org wrote: If you want your bugs to be fixed, posting them on a list and ignoring the bug tracker doesn't work. I didn't ignore it, I've reported several bugs against various component since years ago. -- Yours sincerely, Christopher Meng http://cicku.me -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: bodhi 2 now live
FWIW I think the new version looks much nicer than the old one. Hopefully the issues will be ironed out. On Thu, 2015-08-20 at 17:48 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote: * The formatting of the update notes has changed in some ways (line breaks gone missing?), breaking my nicely formatted notes, e.g.: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/calamares-1.1.2-1.fc23 (The enumerations were turned into one paragraph with bogus italics.) This one's a feature I think: updates are already displayed to the user in markdown -- at least in GNOME Software, and I think even the obsolete GNOME Package Updater, and I think Muon as well? not sure about Apper -- so users are going to see your updates in italics no matter what. You'd be forgiven for not realizing this, since the web interface did not show this. That was a serious problem. (I'd like to hope/assume that the markdown parser is the same as is used in the user-facing system update tools) -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: bodhi 2 now live
On Fri, 21 Aug, 2015 at 05:20:32 GMT, Ralf Corsepius wrote: Unlike yesterday, I am now seeing green push to stable buttons for packages which have been in testing for longer times (weeks, months). However, I am not seeing these buttons for packages, which I had submitted in recent past and which received a This update ... if the maintainer wishes notification, dated ~2-3 days ago. I got an email, but it was missing a comment in bodhi. I could still push to stable: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/khard-0.4.1-1.fc22 I pasted in the email contents as a breadcrumb. --Ben -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: bodhi 2 now live
On 8/22/15, Haïkel hgue...@fedoraproject.org wrote: Sometimes, I wonder if you're not doing this on purpose. Rather than preventing our infrastructure team to fix the actual issues with useless squabbles, just open tickets to let them know. Forget the ridiculous github excuse, fedorahosted trac instance still accepts tickets. Out of respect of the work done by your fellow contributors, stop bikeshedding on the list and start filling/fixing tickets. It's kinda sad, that you never have a nice word for your peers. In the end, you might end up treated as badly as you treat them. Occupying the moral high ground doesn't help as well. -- Yours sincerely, Christopher Meng http://awk.io -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: bodhi 2 now live
On Sat, 2015-08-22 at 10:46 +0800, Christopher Meng wrote: On 8/22/15, Haïkel hgue...@fedoraproject.org wrote: Sometimes, I wonder if you're not doing this on purpose. Rather than preventing our infrastructure team to fix the actual issues with useless squabbles, just open tickets to let them know. Forget the ridiculous github excuse, fedorahosted trac instance still accepts tickets. Out of respect of the work done by your fellow contributors, stop bikeshedding on the list and start filling/fixing tickets. It's kinda sad, that you never have a nice word for your peers. In the end, you might end up treated as badly as you treat them. Occupying the moral high ground doesn't help as well. -- Let's restate it simpler then. Be nicer to people. Assume the best. Yours sincerely, Christopher Meng http://awk.io -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: bodhi 2 now live
On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 21:45:56 -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote: Greetings. After a longer than expected outage window, I'm happy to report that bodhi2 is now live in production at https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates or https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/ The web interface should be available and working for adding and managing updates and build root overrides as well as karma. The command line tools should be available tomorrow in repos. Documentation, please! How to enter well-formatted comments? Is anything like BB-Code supported? Or Wiki syntax? Or other formatting hints? I hope the comments field is not only for 2-3 words in twitter-style. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: bodhi 2 now live
On 08/20/2015 07:40 PM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: On 19 August 2015 at 22:24, Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de wrote: On 08/20/2015 06:08 AM, Christopher Meng wrote: On 8/20/15, Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com wrote: Thanks for your patience as we roll out this new bodhi version. This update has reached 3 days in testing and can be pushed to stable now if the maintainer wishes This update has reached 14 days in testing and can be pushed to stable now if the maintainer wishes uh, can someone tell me where to push the updates? I am having the same issue. I am unable to find a way to push packages in the GUI. Also, there seem to be pretty nasty connectivity/accessibility issues. Accessibility to bodhi has never been overwhelming, but they now seem to have worsend. I am experiencing page loading times are in the order of several minutes and occasional time outs. FYI: I just submitted a new update trough bodhi. Wrist-watch measured, this update took 2 minutes+ GUI-turn-around time (Probably 2:30 min). Ralf -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: bodhi 2 now live
On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 09:00:29 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: On 08/21/2015 08:34 AM, Till Hofmann wrote: Also, it seems like I can revoke other people's updates. At least I could press the 'Revoke' button and I received a confirmation notification. Also, instead of the Revoke button, there is now a Push to Testing and a Push to Stable button. But there is no comment that the update has been revoked, so I'm not sure if it was revoked or not. The start page confirms that I revoked the torch-3.1-12.fc23 update: https://thofmann.fedorapeople.org/Screenshot%20from%202015-08-21%2008-42-52.png Ralf, sorry for messing with your update. Interesting - May be it's still in the process queue somewhere, but so far, I haven't been notified about this, neither in BZ nor per email. If you hadn't mentioned it, I'd not know about this incident. Fedora Notifications web site finds a notification about it: 7 hours ago thofmann revoked torch-3.1-12.fc23 Though, given that you are not the owner of the package, I guess this has not been forwarded to you. It would be bodhi's responsibility to submit a notification that refers to the update ticket owner, too. And perhaps you're also affected by issues with the default Fedora Notifications filters I've encountered. This thread: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2015-August/213609.html -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Unable to submit update for F22 (was Re: bodhi 2 now live)
On Thursday, August 20, 2015 07:02:51 PM Ralf Corsepius wrote: On 08/20/2015 06:00 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: On Thu, 20 Aug 2015 17:55:01 +0200 Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote: Ralf Corsepius wrote: I share this view. I refuse to create a github account and do not consider using any external account resources for Fedora to be acceptable. While I do have a GitHub account (no way for me to eschew it, sadly), I also do not understand why (and am sad that) Bodhi development moved off Fedora Hosted, where there is an issue tracker that works with Fedora accounts, and where we are not reliant on third-party proprietary software as a service. The fedorahosted instance is still there, you can use it if you like. Likely it will be migrated to pagure.io before too long, we just didn't have time to do so before this deployment. To me any non fedora/redhat supplied account system is inacceptable, This applies to github, sourceforge, farcebook, nitter, goggle, or else - period. Ralf pagure.io is developed and run in fedora and uses fas for auth. Dennis signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: bodhi 2 now live
On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 09:08:18 +0100 Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu wrote: On 21/08/15 08:46, Till Hofmann wrote: On 08/21/2015 09:00 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: Anywas, this time bodhi offered me a push to testing and push to stable (!) button (Note: push to stable) I used pushed to testing to re-push it. I just tested push to stable on an unpushed update: Despite the name, it pushes to testing: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/parcimonie.sh-0-0.4.20150804gitc009937.fc22 At least you have a button to push to stable. I've just been notified of three updates that I can push and none are showing any buttons. https://github.com/fedora-infra/bodhi/issues/283 This is likely a migration issue. Ie, the database migration didn't account for this info, so we need to pull that over for updates that are in this state. We should hopefully have this fixed soon. Given how completely and utterly broken this apparently is, should somebody be thinking about rolling back until it can be fixed? No. While we could roll back, it would be a great deal of pain and outage, and IMHO things are not completely and utterly broken. There are bugs, we are fixing them, and much faster than we would be using the old codebase. kevin pgp8QOSQgL6zs.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Unable to submit update for F22 (was Re: bodhi 2 now live)
On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 01:56:02 +0200 Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote: Kevin Fenzi wrote: Theres a bunch of tools out there to export issues from github They can turn this off at any moment, leaving you with no way to get your data out. Yep. This is the case for any project using non free tools... In fact it's also the case if you _are_ using 100% free tools too, as someone could say sorry, we no longer want to host this and have turned off everything. So, I guess you could run a pagure.io instance locally and sync it to a remote one or something. But then it's up to you to back it up and such. My point is that exposing our code to a much wider group of developers is not a valid argument for using GitHub instead of Fedora Hosted, because one should be able to expect contributors to Fedora infrastructure code to sign up for a FAS account to contribute. Sure, that was just one part of using github, not the entire reason. Also, I wasn't someone who made that decision. Also, we are moving bodhi to pagure.io soon. So, I think this is my last reply here. ;) kevin pgpWh_5ZjCuNn.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: bodhi 2 now live
On 08/21/2015 04:03 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote: On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 09:00:29 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: On 08/21/2015 08:34 AM, Till Hofmann wrote: Also, it seems like I can revoke other people's updates. At least I could press the 'Revoke' button and I received a confirmation notification. Also, instead of the Revoke button, there is now a Push to Testing and a Push to Stable button. But there is no comment that the update has been revoked, so I'm not sure if it was revoked or not. The start page confirms that I revoked the torch-3.1-12.fc23 update: https://thofmann.fedorapeople.org/Screenshot%20from%202015-08-21%2008-42-52.png Ralf, sorry for messing with your update. Interesting - May be it's still in the process queue somewhere, but so far, I haven't been notified about this, neither in BZ nor per email. If you hadn't mentioned it, I'd not know about this incident. Fedora Notifications web site finds a notification about it: 7 hours ago thofmann revoked torch-3.1-12.fc23 Yes. This was the incident Till was referring to. Though, given that you are not the owner of the package, I guess this has not been forwarded to you. Correct - I acted as provenpackager, who stepped in to keep alive a package, whose maintainer likely is AWOL[1]. It would be bodhi's responsibility to submit a notification that refers to the update ticket owner, too. Exactly. IMO, this is a bug in bodhi. I would expect the update submitter and the bugzilla-ticket owner, an update is referring to be notified (In this case: both me). And perhaps you're also affected by issues with the default Fedora Notifications filters I've encountered. This thread: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2015-August/213609.html I don't know - Possible. Due to the mass of notifications, I am receiving (100s - 1000s per day), I am filtering notifications and am moving most notifications to trash unread ;) Ralf [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1240072 -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Unable to submit update for F22 (was Re: bodhi 2 now live)
On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 05:27:37 +0200 Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de wrote: Upstreams, yes, but not Fedora. Fedora should be self-hosted. Can you please define Fedora and self-hosted as you use them above? Fedora is part of the larger open source community. Fedora Infrastructure uses 100% open source software. We don't however dictate to all those projects that they must also in turn use 100% open source tools and hosting. We can surely urge them to do so, but they are under no obligation to listen to us. That said, Fedora should not start being rude and push people around to get accounts on other commercial entities and to expose themselves to the risks implied by this. Instead we should be rude and force developers of projects to do what we want? Anyhow, for the last time: github is currently the perferred way to report bodhi2 bugs. If you have some objection to them, you can file a fedorahosted ticket or infrastructure fedorahosted ticket. Also, I have been trying to file tickets on issues I see in mailing lists that aren't filed. Good day. kevin pgpc0KFeEHUDA.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: bodhi 2 now live
On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 12:39:40 +0200 Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com wrote: Documentation, please! How to enter well-formatted comments? Is anything like BB-Code supported? Or Wiki syntax? Or other formatting hints? I hope the comments field is not only for 2-3 words in twitter-style. It's markdown. There's a issue open to note that and provide a link to a short cheetsheet: https://github.com/fedora-infra/bodhi/issues/286 kevin pgpoB7e5pg4VB.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: bodhi 2 now live
And another annoyance: The search box appears not to work in KHTML (Return/Enter does nothing) nor even in KWebKitPart/QtWebKit (I get sent to a URL with the search term in it, but it just displays the same front page as before). Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: bodhi 2 now live
Sometimes, I wonder if you're not doing this on purpose. Rather than preventing our infrastructure team to fix the actual issues with useless squabbles, just open tickets to let them know. Forget the ridiculous github excuse, fedorahosted trac instance still accepts tickets. Out of respect of the work done by your fellow contributors, stop bikeshedding on the list and start filling/fixing tickets. It's kinda sad, that you never have a nice word for your peers. In the end, you might end up treated as badly as you treat them. Regards, H. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: bodhi 2 now live
Kevin Fenzi wrote: No. While we could roll back, it would be a great deal of pain and outage, and IMHO things are not completely and utterly broken. There are bugs, we are fixing them, and much faster than we would be using the old codebase. Given how we are dealing with data CORRUPTED by the migration (see also the issue with the wrong submitters) and with SECURITY issues (people able to change updates they shouldn't be able to, and even if that bug weren't there, also the wrong submitter issue that will give the false submitter such privileges), rolling the whole thing back to a pre-migration backup, even if we were to lose all changes made to Bodhi contents (or even to Bodhi and Koji contents, if we have to roll that back too) since the migration, would IMHO be the only safe approach. Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: bodhi 2 now live
Kevin Fenzi wrote: It's markdown. But it eats all line breaks and so breaks basic Markdown formatting such as enumerations that worked fine in Bodhi 1. Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: bodhi 2 now live
This update has reached 3 days in testing and can be pushed to stable now if the maintainer wishes 2 days ago, 2015-08-18 07:00:53 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/libdom-0.1.2-1.fc23 Still can't push. -- Yours sincerely, Christopher Meng http://awk.io -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Unable to submit update for F22 (was Re: bodhi 2 now live)
On 08/20/2015 07:39 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: Well, I don't know if there was a Big Philosophical Discussion, but in practice all kinds of Fedora-ish stuff has its upstream in github these days, so yes, clearly times have changed. That's not the point. I am talking about separating Fedora web-infrastructure from the web-infrastructure's upstreams. In this case, I am talking about Fedora's infrastructure deployment/installation (A Fedora product - Responsible: Fedora) of bodhi to demand reporting bugs on Fedora's infrastructure to upstream (A bodhi-project product - Responsible: Upstream). In other words: Nobody with a sane mind would ask users of web shop's installation to file bugs at Oracle/MySQL etc - This is what is happening here. It's a classical case where people with multiple roles are unable to distinguish their roles. Ralf -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: bodhi 2 now live
On 08/21/2015 08:47 AM, Till Hofmann wrote: On 08/21/2015 08:34 AM, Till Hofmann wrote: Also, it seems like I can revoke other people's updates. At least I could press the 'Revoke' button and I received a confirmation notification. Also, instead of the Revoke button, there is now a Push to Testing and a Push to Stable button. But there is no comment that the update has been revoked, so I'm not sure if it was revoked or not. The start page confirms that I revoked the torch-3.1-12.fc23 update: https://thofmann.fedorapeople.org/Screenshot%20from%202015-08-21%2008-42-52.png Ralf, sorry for messing with your update. Interesting - May be it's still in the process queue somewhere, but so far, I haven't been notified about this, neither in BZ nor per email. If you hadn't mentioned it, I'd not know about this incident. Anywas, this time bodhi offered me a push to testing and push to stable (!) button (Note: push to stable) I used pushed to testing to re-push it. BTW (I mentioned it before), Timestamps are still screwed up: ... Submitted 31 minutes ago, 2015-08-21 06:22:21.364583 Automated Test Results rpmlint torch-3.1-12.fc23 3 hours ago ... Ralf -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: bodhi 2 now live
Why can I push to testing for updates submitted by other people, and where the update is already stable? [1] Also, it seems like I can revoke other people's updates. At least I could press the 'Revoke' button and I received a confirmation notification. Also, instead of the Revoke button, there is now a Push to Testing and a Push to Stable button. But there is no comment that the update has been revoked, so I'm not sure if it was revoked or not. - Till [1] https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-12791 [2] https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/torch-3.1-12.fc23 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: bodhi 2 now live
On 08/21/2015 08:34 AM, Till Hofmann wrote: Also, it seems like I can revoke other people's updates. At least I could press the 'Revoke' button and I received a confirmation notification. Also, instead of the Revoke button, there is now a Push to Testing and a Push to Stable button. But there is no comment that the update has been revoked, so I'm not sure if it was revoked or not. The start page confirms that I revoked the torch-3.1-12.fc23 update: https://thofmann.fedorapeople.org/Screenshot%20from%202015-08-21%2008-42-52.png Ralf, sorry for messing with your update. [2] https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/torch-3.1-12.fc23 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: bodhi 2 now live
Am 21.08.2015 um 10:40 schrieb Charles-Antoine Couret: and somebody again didn't care about fedora-easy-karma which in 2015 is long broken than working with several issues - no, i don't want to log into a webinterface and seek packages for karma by hand while verify it's the same build running on my machine... Getting list of installed packages... Waiting for Bodhi for a list of packages in updates-testing (F21)... Traceback (most recent call last): File /usr/bin/fedora-easy-karma, line 652, in module FedoraEasyKarma() File /usr/bin/fedora-easy-karma, line 413, in __init__ testing_updates = testing_updates[updates] KeyError: 'updates' This error means you use the python-fedora-0.5.3. I updated this package and I have another error and I reported that into Bugzilla : https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1255452 I don't know if it is a Bodhi 2, fedora-easy-karma or python-fedora issue me too - but i wonder why it breaks that often from timeouts over weeks to all sort of python stack traces signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: bodhi 2 now live
On 21/08/15 08:46, Till Hofmann wrote: On 08/21/2015 09:00 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: Anywas, this time bodhi offered me a push to testing and push to stable (!) button (Note: push to stable) I used pushed to testing to re-push it. I just tested push to stable on an unpushed update: Despite the name, it pushes to testing: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/parcimonie.sh-0-0.4.20150804gitc009937.fc22 At least you have a button to push to stable. I've just been notified of three updates that I can push and none are showing any buttons. Given how completely and utterly broken this apparently is, should somebody be thinking about rolling back until it can be fixed? Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: bodhi 2 now live
On 08/21/2015 09:00 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: Anywas, this time bodhi offered me a push to testing and push to stable (!) button (Note: push to stable) I used pushed to testing to re-push it. I just tested push to stable on an unpushed update: Despite the name, it pushes to testing: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/parcimonie.sh-0-0.4.20150804gitc009937.fc22 - Till signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: bodhi 2 now live
Am 20.08.2015 um 05:45 schrieb Kevin Fenzi: Greetings. After a longer than expected outage window, I'm happy to report that bodhi2 is now live in production at https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates or https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/ The web interface should be available and working for adding and managing updates and build root overrides as well as karma. The command line tools should be available tomorrow in repos. and somebody again didn't care about fedora-easy-karma which in 2015 is long broken than working with several issues - no, i don't want to log into a webinterface and seek packages for karma by hand while verify it's the same build running on my machine... Getting list of installed packages... Waiting for Bodhi for a list of packages in updates-testing (F21)... Traceback (most recent call last): File /usr/bin/fedora-easy-karma, line 652, in module FedoraEasyKarma() File /usr/bin/fedora-easy-karma, line 413, in __init__ testing_updates = testing_updates[updates] KeyError: 'updates' signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: bodhi 2 now live
and somebody again didn't care about fedora-easy-karma which in 2015 is long broken than working with several issues - no, i don't want to log into a webinterface and seek packages for karma by hand while verify it's the same build running on my machine... Getting list of installed packages... Waiting for Bodhi for a list of packages in updates-testing (F21)... Traceback (most recent call last): File /usr/bin/fedora-easy-karma, line 652, in module FedoraEasyKarma() File /usr/bin/fedora-easy-karma, line 413, in __init__ testing_updates = testing_updates[updates] KeyError: 'updates' This error means you use the python-fedora-0.5.3. I updated this package and I have another error and I reported that into Bugzilla : https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1255452 I don't know if it is a Bodhi 2, fedora-easy-karma or python-fedora issue. Regards, Charles-Antoine Couret -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Unable to submit update for F22 (was Re: bodhi 2 now live)
On 08/20/2015 06:00 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: On Thu, 20 Aug 2015 17:55:01 +0200 Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote: Ralf Corsepius wrote: I share this view. I refuse to create a github account and do not consider using any external account resources for Fedora to be acceptable. While I do have a GitHub account (no way for me to eschew it, sadly), I also do not understand why (and am sad that) Bodhi development moved off Fedora Hosted, where there is an issue tracker that works with Fedora accounts, and where we are not reliant on third-party proprietary software as a service. The fedorahosted instance is still there, you can use it if you like. Likely it will be migrated to pagure.io before too long, we just didn't have time to do so before this deployment. To me any non fedora/redhat supplied account system is inacceptable, This applies to github, sourceforge, farcebook, nitter, goggle, or else - period. Ralf -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: bodhi 2 now live
On Wed, 2015-08-19 at 21:45 -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote: Greetings. After a longer than expected outage window, I'm happy to report that bodhi2 is now live in production at https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates or https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/ I see in the thread that people seem to be having issues with this. Just wanted to say that to me it looks nicer and seems to work great. Nice work everyone who worked on it. I assume it will continue to get better. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Unable to submit update for F22 (was Re: bodhi 2 now live)
On 08/20/2015 09:51 AM, Milan Crha wrote: On Wed, 2015-08-19 at 21:45 -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote: There will likely be oddities and bugs. Please file them in github so we can prioritize them and get them fixed up. https://github.com/fedora-infra/bodhi/issues Hi, I do not have a github account, and I'm currently not going to create any (github is not my favorite site), thus I'm writing here instead (after all, Fedora infrastructure issue = Fedora bugzilla, no?). I share this view. I refuse to create a github account and do not consider using any external account resources for Fedora to be acceptable. I tried to submit an update for Fedora 22 and it just tells me that it wasn't able to submit it with absolutely no reason. My values are: And this as well. I just tried to create an update for F23 and was just told unable to create update. So be it, ... give me a ping when you think bodhi is ready for public usage. ATM it definitely is not. Ralf -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Unable to submit update for F22 (was Re: bodhi 2 now live)
On 20/08/15 10:28, Ralf Corsepius wrote: On 08/20/2015 09:51 AM, Milan Crha wrote: On Wed, 2015-08-19 at 21:45 -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote: There will likely be oddities and bugs. Please file them in github so we can prioritize them and get them fixed up. https://github.com/fedora-infra/bodhi/issues Hi, I do not have a github account, and I'm currently not going to create any (github is not my favorite site), thus I'm writing here instead (after all, Fedora infrastructure issue = Fedora bugzilla, no?). I share this view. I refuse to create a github account and do not consider using any external account resources for Fedora to be acceptable. I tried to submit an update for Fedora 22 and it just tells me that it wasn't able to submit it with absolutely no reason. My values are: And this as well. I just tried to create an update for F23 and was just told unable to create update. So be it, ... give me a ping when you think bodhi is ready for public usage. ATM it definitely is not. I had the same issue trying to create an update for F23. I was able to manage it eventually by using fedpkg update, once I'd updated python-fedora from F21 updates-testing. However, I later needed to edit that update to change the build, and the result is an update with no builds that I can't even access any more. https://github.com/fedora-infra/bodhi/issues/202 Looks like you need to hit enter after typing/pasting in the package NVR into the Candidate Builds field, which was not at all obvious to me. Paul. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Unable to submit update for F22 (was Re: bodhi 2 now live)
On Wed, 2015-08-19 at 21:45 -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote: There will likely be oddities and bugs. Please file them in github so we can prioritize them and get them fixed up. https://github.com/fedora-infra/bodhi/issues Hi, I do not have a github account, and I'm currently not going to create any (github is not my favorite site), thus I'm writing here instead (after all, Fedora infrastructure issue = Fedora bugzilla, no?). I tried to submit an update for Fedora 22 and it just tells me that it wasn't able to submit it with absolutely no reason. My values are: Packages: Related Bugs: 1231591 Candidate Builds: evolution-3.16.5-2.fc22 Update notes: Fixes possible crash when viewing mailing list message digest. Final details Type: bugfix Severity: unspecified Suggestion: unspecified Close bugs on stable? [x] Auto-request stable? [x] Stable karma: 3 Unstable karma: -3 Require bugs: [ ] Require testcases: [ ] Require checks: Clicking Submit returns: Unable to create update with no other information in the right-bottom corner tooltip. Bye, Milan P.S.: the interface is different, more confusing, maybe when I get use to it it'll feel better, but it also requires me to do more changes in the interface, while the old good bodhi had preselected bugfix type, thus I only added builds and description, sometimes also list of bugs and that was all. Right now I do 3 more clicks. Is there a way to disable notifications of changes of other people? It doesn't worth the bandwidth in my case. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Unable to submit update for F22 (was Re: bodhi 2 now live)
On 08/20/2015 07:51 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: On Thu, 20 Aug 2015 12:33:37 -0500 Michael Cronenworth m...@cchtml.com wrote: On 08/20/2015 12:02 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: To me any non fedora/redhat supplied account system is inacceptable, This applies to github, sourceforge, farcebook, nitter, goggle, or else - period. The last time a non-Fedora hosted / closed source service was suggested it was shot down. https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2013-October/191012.html Have times changed? Using github is acceptable? For what? :) IMHO, I think projects should be free to choose whatever tools they wish to build their project. Upstreams, yes, but not Fedora. Fedora should be self-hosted. That said, Fedora should not start being rude and push people around to get accounts on other commercial entities and to expose themselves to the risks implied by this. Ralf -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Unable to submit update for F22 (was Re: bodhi 2 now live)
On 08/20/2015 12:00 PM, Paul Howarth wrote: On 20/08/15 10:28, Ralf Corsepius wrote: On 08/20/2015 09:51 AM, Milan Crha wrote: On Wed, 2015-08-19 at 21:45 -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote: There will likely be oddities and bugs. Please file them in github so we can prioritize them and get them fixed up. https://github.com/fedora-infra/bodhi/issues Hi, I do not have a github account, and I'm currently not going to create any (github is not my favorite site), thus I'm writing here instead (after all, Fedora infrastructure issue = Fedora bugzilla, no?). I share this view. I refuse to create a github account and do not consider using any external account resources for Fedora to be acceptable. I tried to submit an update for Fedora 22 and it just tells me that it wasn't able to submit it with absolutely no reason. My values are: And this as well. I just tried to create an update for F23 and was just told unable to create update. So be it, ... give me a ping when you think bodhi is ready for public usage. ATM it definitely is not. I had the same issue trying to create an update for F23. I was able to manage it eventually by using fedpkg update, once I'd updated python-fedora from F21 updates-testing. However, I later needed to edit that update to change the build, and the result is an update with no builds that I can't even access any more. https://github.com/fedora-infra/bodhi/issues/202 Looks like you need to hit enter after typing/pasting in the package NVR into the Candidate Builds field, which was not at all obvious to me. Aha ;() I just somehow managed to push an update - No idea how. While filling out the update form for a second time (The first try had failed with the error above), out of a sudden a large number of popups with checkboxes inside popped up. After checking some of them, the update was reported to have been pushed, except that the BZ, I had added manually seems to have been ignored - Seems to me, as is this popup is not offering BZ's which have been closed rawhide but require further action for fc23. BTW: Something with time stamps of the rpmlint/taskotron checks seem to be wrong, as well. I my case rpmlint reported to have checked the package hours ago, while I had commited the package into git ca. 1/2 hour ago and submitted it minutes ago. Ralf -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Unable to submit update for F22 (was Re: bodhi 2 now live)
On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 00:39:20 +0200 Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote: Paul W. Frields wrote: This is correct. The infra team discussed this some time ago and since Github does nothing to lock up the resources we care about, So you'd only see lock-in to proprietary infrastructure as a problem if they were actively locking things up? Even if now, everything can be exported, who says the feature will not have been removed by the time we need it? Sure, you have local clones of the git repositories, but what about issues in the issue tracker? Theres a bunch of tools out there to export issues from github. and exposes our code to a much wider (*1000 at least) group of developers, If a developer wants to contribute to Fedora infrastructure, surely, signing up for a FAS account cannot be an unacceptable barrier to entry! I'm not able to parse this really... but sure, if you don't want to go to github, as I noted N emails back, you are welcome to use the fedorahosted trac or patches in emails to lists. among other reasons, judged it OK. Having a PR-based workflow has helped the team be a lot more agile at no cost to the freedom of our code. I still don't get what is supposed to be easier about: ...snip... I'm not going to convince you to use github. It doesn't matter if you or I like it, lots and lots of other people do. Be that as it may, there is now pagure, and I imagine many if not all of these repos will be moving there. Incidentally, pagure has some functionality to allow bidirectional code movement with Github, which gets the best of both worlds. Code, yes, but what about issues? You can export them via a number of tools. If someone doesn't like making a Github account, in the interim they're still free to fork as would be usual for any repo (including hundreds of projects we carry in Fedora repositories), and send a patch to the list. And how should they report a bug without a GitHub account if you point everyone to GitHub as your official issue tracker? Well, they could use the fedorahosted trac, or the infrastructure mailing list or irc or whatever. This is likely my last reply in this thread, as I noted N mails ago, bodhi is likely to move to pagure.io now that we have that and it gets us most everything github has. So, trying to convince us to move this project from github when we are already doing it seems... pointless. kevin pgpLpw0UrhXZ2.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Unable to submit update for F22 (was Re: bodhi 2 now live)
Kevin Fenzi wrote: Theres a bunch of tools out there to export issues from github They can turn this off at any moment, leaving you with no way to get your data out. and exposes our code to a much wider (*1000 at least) group of developers, If a developer wants to contribute to Fedora infrastructure, surely, signing up for a FAS account cannot be an unacceptable barrier to entry! I'm not able to parse this really... but sure, if you don't want to go to github, as I noted N emails back, you are welcome to use the fedorahosted trac or patches in emails to lists. My point is that exposing our code to a much wider group of developers is not a valid argument for using GitHub instead of Fedora Hosted, because one should be able to expect contributors to Fedora infrastructure code to sign up for a FAS account to contribute. Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Unable to submit update for F22 (was Re: bodhi 2 now live)
On Friday, August 21, 2015, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote: vs. 1'. clone the upstream repository, 2'. commit your change(s) to the clone, 3'. export your patch(es) with git format-patch, 4'. open an issue through a web interface, 5'. attach the patch(es) to the issue (except of course on GitHub, where 5' is not possible because they do not allow attaching anything other than images/pictures to their issue tracker, presumably to force everyone to use the pull request workflow). I'd only expect pull request functionality only, if we can have nice looking interface like github PR, it'd be great. -- Yours sincerely, Christopher Meng http://cicku.me -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: bodhi 2 now live
On 19 August 2015 at 22:24, Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de wrote: On 08/20/2015 06:08 AM, Christopher Meng wrote: On 8/20/15, Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com wrote: Thanks for your patience as we roll out this new bodhi version. This update has reached 3 days in testing and can be pushed to stable now if the maintainer wishes This update has reached 14 days in testing and can be pushed to stable now if the maintainer wishes uh, can someone tell me where to push the updates? I am having the same issue. I am unable to find a way to push packages in the GUI. Also, there seem to be pretty nasty connectivity/accessibility issues. Accessibility to bodhi has never been overwhelming, but they now seem to have worsend. I am experiencing page loading times are in the order of several minutes and occasional time outs. when this happens again could you do a wget -S http://service_at_fedora_that_is_broke.fedoraproject.org and send along the data from that. I need to see if this problem is related to our IPV6 servers or with a specific server in general. Thank you. Ralf -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct -- Stephen J Smoogen. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Unable to submit update for F22 (was Re: bodhi 2 now live)
On Thu, 2015-08-20 at 12:33 -0500, Michael Cronenworth wrote: On 08/20/2015 12:02 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: To me any non fedora/redhat supplied account system is inacceptable, This applies to github, sourceforge, farcebook, nitter, goggle, or else - period. The last time a non-Fedora hosted / closed source service was suggested it was shot down. https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2013-October/191012.h tml Have times changed? Using github is acceptable? (following on from previous mail) that specific link, though, is talking about something completely different. That would be using the non-free software *as part of infra*, not just hosting some open source code we run in infra on a service that is not free. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Unable to submit update for F22 (was Re: bodhi 2 now live)
On Thu, 20 Aug 2015 12:33:37 -0500 Michael Cronenworth m...@cchtml.com wrote: On 08/20/2015 12:02 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: To me any non fedora/redhat supplied account system is inacceptable, This applies to github, sourceforge, farcebook, nitter, goggle, or else - period. The last time a non-Fedora hosted / closed source service was suggested it was shot down. https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2013-October/191012.html Have times changed? Using github is acceptable? For what? :) IMHO, I think projects should be free to choose whatever tools they wish to build their project. You are of course free to choose to not use that application/project based on that or other factors. Closed source applications are not something we ever want to run in Fedora Infrastructure, we run all open source applications. We don't drop or remove applications that choose to use non free tools (like github) to develop their open source application. Partly because IMHO it seems poor to try and dictate to projects we simply use applications from how they work, and partly because it's a grey line. If we say no non free tools can be used to develop any application we use how do we audit that? If some contributor runs a non free tool and uses it to improve an application how do we know? Should we likewise remove all these things from Fedora? Does the line include running servers with non free firmware? Storage appliances? Routers? I think the best we can do is run 100% open source applications and urge upstreams to use free tools to create and manage those where possible. kevin pgp5kCd5RENFv.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Unable to submit update for F22 (was Re: bodhi 2 now live)
On 08/20/2015 12:02 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: To me any non fedora/redhat supplied account system is inacceptable, This applies to github, sourceforge, farcebook, nitter, goggle, or else - period. The last time a non-Fedora hosted / closed source service was suggested it was shot down. https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2013-October/191012.html Have times changed? Using github is acceptable? -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Unable to submit update for F22 (was Re: bodhi 2 now live)
On Thu, 2015-08-20 at 12:33 -0500, Michael Cronenworth wrote: On 08/20/2015 12:02 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: To me any non fedora/redhat supplied account system is inacceptable, This applies to github, sourceforge, farcebook, nitter, goggle, or else - period. The last time a non-Fedora hosted / closed source service was suggested it was shot down. https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2013-October/191012.h tml Have times changed? Using github is acceptable? Well, I don't know if there was a Big Philosophical Discussion, but in practice all kinds of Fedora-ish stuff has its upstream in github these days, so yes, clearly times have changed. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Unable to submit update for F22 (was Re: bodhi 2 now live)
On Thu, 2015-08-20 at 11:00 +0100, Paul Howarth wrote: Looks like you need to hit enter after typing/pasting in the package NVR into the Candidate Builds field, which was not at all obvious to me. Hi, thanks for the hint. That made it work, the package name is repeated below the entry with a checkbox, after pressing the Enter. That's not intuitive at all. What I'm doing is filling a web form, such forms are usually submitted by pressing Enter, I wouldn't think of pressing Enter in an edit input field. Also because it was not needed when working with bodhi before. D'oh, the bug reference is lost and the bug not updated. Nonetheless, the update is filled. I hope. I guess. Bye, Milan -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: bodhi 2 now live
On 08/20/2015 06:24 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: On 08/20/2015 06:08 AM, Christopher Meng wrote: On 8/20/15, Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com wrote: Thanks for your patience as we roll out this new bodhi version. This update has reached 3 days in testing and can be pushed to stable now if the maintainer wishes This update has reached 14 days in testing and can be pushed to stable now if the maintainer wishes uh, can someone tell me where to push the updates? I am having the same issue. I am unable to find a way to push packages in the GUI. AFAIS, this morning, the situation seems to have improved. Unlike yesterday, I am now seeing green push to stable buttons for packages which have been in testing for longer times (weeks, months). However, I am not seeing these buttons for packages, which I had submitted in recent past and which received a This update ... if the maintainer wishes notification, dated ~2-3 days ago. E.g.: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/libcmpiutil-0.5.7-6.fc23 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/spacechart-0.9.5-17.fc23 Could it be the old bodhi was using a 3 days delay time for fc23, while the new bodhi uses 7 days? Could it be that the corresponding bodhi internals have been lost during the transition? Ralf -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: bodhi 2 now live
Kevin Fenzi wrote: After a longer than expected outage window, I'm happy to report that bodhi2 is now live in production at https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates or https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/ Unfortunately, there are several things that have become worse: * The front page is much less useful. It used to have: - My recent updates - A menu with quick links to the supported Fedora releases, to list existing updates or submit new ones Now, instead, the main focus is on the list of recent events, including things such as xyz has been awarded the 'Bla bla bla' badge which are really irrelevant. * Reliance on JavaScript has unnecessarily increased in several places: - listing my recent updates is now done in AJAX, - the update submission form now requires JavaScript. To be fair, the JavaScript code works even in KHTML, but still, I don't understand this insistence on using JavaScript where plain HTML (with optional JavaScript for things such as autocompletion) worked fine. * The submitter is wrong for some updates! See: https://github.com/fedora-infra/bodhi/issues/241 * The formatting of the update notes has changed in some ways (line breaks gone missing?), breaking my nicely formatted notes, e.g.: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/calamares-1.1.2-1.fc23 (The enumerations were turned into one paragraph with bogus italics.) Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: bodhi 2 now live
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 11:19:10AM -0600, Nathanael D. Noblet wrote: On Wed, 2015-08-19 at 21:45 -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote: Greetings. After a longer than expected outage window, I'm happy to report that bodhi2 is now live in production at https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates or https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/ I see in the thread that people seem to be having issues with this. Just wanted to say that to me it looks nicer and seems to work great. Nice work everyone who worked on it. I assume it will continue to get better. +1 The auto-qa feedback is very accessible. The new interface also seems much more responsive compared to the old one. Zbyszek -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Unable to submit update for F22 (was Re: bodhi 2 now live)
Kevin Fenzi wrote: IMHO, I think projects should be free to choose whatever tools they wish to build their project. You are of course free to choose to not use that application/project based on that or other factors. Closed source applications are not something we ever want to run in Fedora Infrastructure, we run all open source applications. We don't drop or remove applications that choose to use non free tools (like github) to develop their open source application. Partly because IMHO it seems poor to try and dictate to projects we simply use applications from how they work, and partly because it's a grey line. But this is a project where Fedora *is* upstream! One thing is the standards we require for being packaged in Fedora or used in Fedora infrastructure. Another is what we expect from our *own* projects. And there, requiring Fedora infrastructure to be used is very reasonable. Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Unable to submit update for F22 (was Re: bodhi 2 now live)
On Thu, 20 Aug 2015 22:24:18 +0200 Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote: But this is a project where Fedora *is* upstream! I assume you mean bodhi by this. The primary bodhi developers are heavily involved in Fedora, but are also involved in other communities. When is a project Fedora ? There are other installs of bodhi out in the world (at least there were) where we get contributions from. One thing is the standards we require for being packaged in Fedora or used in Fedora infrastructure. Another is what we expect from our *own* projects. And there, requiring Fedora infrastructure to be used is very reasonable. Well, I guess we will agree to disagree then. kevin pgpCkNoHt74Bk.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Unable to submit update for F22 (was Re: bodhi 2 now live)
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 10:40:40AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: On Thu, 2015-08-20 at 12:33 -0500, Michael Cronenworth wrote: On 08/20/2015 12:02 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: To me any non fedora/redhat supplied account system is inacceptable, This applies to github, sourceforge, farcebook, nitter, goggle, or else - period. The last time a non-Fedora hosted / closed source service was suggested it was shot down. https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2013-October/191012.h tml Have times changed? Using github is acceptable? (following on from previous mail) that specific link, though, is talking about something completely different. That would be using the non-free software *as part of infra*, not just hosting some open source code we run in infra on a service that is not free. This is correct. The infra team discussed this some time ago and since Github does nothing to lock up the resources we care about, and exposes our code to a much wider (*1000 at least) group of developers, among other reasons, judged it OK. Having a PR-based workflow has helped the team be a lot more agile at no cost to the freedom of our code. Be that as it may, there is now pagure, and I imagine many if not all of these repos will be moving there. Incidentally, pagure has some functionality to allow bidirectional code movement with Github, which gets the best of both worlds. If someone doesn't like making a Github account, in the interim they're still free to fork as would be usual for any repo (including hundreds of projects we carry in Fedora repositories), and send a patch to the list. -- Paul W. Frieldshttp://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/ The open source story continues to grow: http://opensource.com -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Unable to submit update for F22 (was Re: bodhi 2 now live)
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 02:40:10PM -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote: On Thu, 20 Aug 2015 22:24:18 +0200 Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote: But this is a project where Fedora *is* upstream! I assume you mean bodhi by this. The primary bodhi developers are heavily involved in Fedora, but are also involved in other communities. When is a project Fedora ? There are other installs of bodhi out in the world (at least there were) where we get contributions from. Right, considering Fedora as equivalent to the upstream here is incorrect. These projects are meant to be forkable to any project (free or not), of which Fedora is only one. One thing is the standards we require for being packaged in Fedora or used in Fedora infrastructure. Another is what we expect from our *own* projects. And there, requiring Fedora infrastructure to be used is very reasonable. Well, I guess we will agree to disagree then. Agreed with kfenzi. -- Paul W. Frieldshttp://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/ The open source story continues to grow: http://opensource.com -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: bodhi 2 now live
On 08/20/2015 06:05 PM, Tomasz Torcz wrote: On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 10:02:44AM -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote: Are things like redhat bugzilla, koji and fedocal also slow? Bugzilla is always slow, it's not a good reference ;-) Definitely. But bodhi2 seemed worse :-) What might have interfered this morning, was my ISP. It was reported to have major networking issues, affecting several million customers, but ... I didn't notice any and did not have any networking problems but to fedoraproject.org ;) Ralf -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Unable to submit update for F22 (was Re: bodhi 2 now live)
On Thu, 20 Aug 2015 17:55:01 +0200 Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote: Ralf Corsepius wrote: I share this view. I refuse to create a github account and do not consider using any external account resources for Fedora to be acceptable. While I do have a GitHub account (no way for me to eschew it, sadly), I also do not understand why (and am sad that) Bodhi development moved off Fedora Hosted, where there is an issue tracker that works with Fedora accounts, and where we are not reliant on third-party proprietary software as a service. The fedorahosted instance is still there, you can use it if you like. Likely it will be migrated to pagure.io before too long, we just didn't have time to do so before this deployment. kevin pgplDo7758fzG.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: bodhi 2 now live
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 10:02:44AM -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote: Are things like redhat bugzilla, koji and fedocal also slow? Bugzilla is always slow, it's not a good reference ;-) -- Tomasz TorczTo co nierealne -- tutaj jest normalne. xmpp: zdzich...@chrome.pl Ziomale na życie mają tu patenty specjalne. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Unable to submit update for F22 (was Re: bodhi 2 now live)
Ralf Corsepius wrote: I share this view. I refuse to create a github account and do not consider using any external account resources for Fedora to be acceptable. While I do have a GitHub account (no way for me to eschew it, sadly), I also do not understand why (and am sad that) Bodhi development moved off Fedora Hosted, where there is an issue tracker that works with Fedora accounts, and where we are not reliant on third-party proprietary software as a service. Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: bodhi 2 now live
On Thu, 20 Aug 2015 06:24:57 +0200 Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de wrote: On 08/20/2015 06:08 AM, Christopher Meng wrote: On 8/20/15, Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com wrote: Thanks for your patience as we roll out this new bodhi version. This update has reached 3 days in testing and can be pushed to stable now if the maintainer wishes This update has reached 14 days in testing and can be pushed to stable now if the maintainer wishes uh, can someone tell me where to push the updates? I am having the same issue. I am unable to find a way to push packages in the GUI. It works for me. Or you could get the very latest python-fedora from koji and use 'fedpkg update' (which also worked fine here). Also, there seem to be pretty nasty connectivity/accessibility issues. Accessibility to bodhi has never been overwhelming, but they now seem to have worsend. I am experiencing page loading times are in the order of several minutes and occasional time outs. I'm not seeing this at all here. The interface is very fast. Are things like redhat bugzilla, koji and fedocal also slow? If so, it might be just a backbone internet connectivity issue... kevin pgpfd2VUb9Fjr.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: bodhi 2 now live
I wrote: Unfortunately, there are several things that have become worse: PS: Some more: * The nice colored and unique icons were replaced with text-only with a color scheme that is the same for all fields (e.g., orange for both testing and bugfix), or even blackwhite text (in the list of my updates), so I have to actually spend time reading the text to know where the update is, what push request there is, what type of update it is, etc. * The list of a user's latest updates doesn't even specify at all what kind of updates (bugfix, security, enhancement, newpackage) they are anymore. * The links in the mails from Bodhi (even the new ones from today!): https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-13400/git-cola-2.3-1.fc22 do not work anymore. Only these work: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-13400 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/git-cola-2.3-1.fc22 but not the combined form the mails are linking to. Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Unable to submit update for F22 (was Re: bodhi 2 now live)
Paul W. Frields wrote: This is correct. The infra team discussed this some time ago and since Github does nothing to lock up the resources we care about, So you'd only see lock-in to proprietary infrastructure as a problem if they were actively locking things up? Even if now, everything can be exported, who says the feature will not have been removed by the time we need it? Sure, you have local clones of the git repositories, but what about issues in the issue tracker? and exposes our code to a much wider (*1000 at least) group of developers, If a developer wants to contribute to Fedora infrastructure, surely, signing up for a FAS account cannot be an unacceptable barrier to entry! among other reasons, judged it OK. Having a PR-based workflow has helped the team be a lot more agile at no cost to the freedom of our code. I still don't get what is supposed to be easier about: 1. create a personal fork through a web interface, 2. clone the fork, 3. commit your change(s) to the clone, 4. push it/them to your fork, 5. open a pull request through a web interface vs. 1'. clone the upstream repository, 2'. commit your change(s) to the clone, 3'. export your patch(es) with git format-patch, 4'. open an issue through a web interface, 5'. attach the patch(es) to the issue (except of course on GitHub, where 5' is not possible because they do not allow attaching anything other than images/pictures to their issue tracker, presumably to force everyone to use the pull request workflow). As for regular contributors, they should have direct commit access to upstream anyway. Be that as it may, there is now pagure, and I imagine many if not all of these repos will be moving there. Incidentally, pagure has some functionality to allow bidirectional code movement with Github, which gets the best of both worlds. Code, yes, but what about issues? If someone doesn't like making a Github account, in the interim they're still free to fork as would be usual for any repo (including hundreds of projects we carry in Fedora repositories), and send a patch to the list. And how should they report a bug without a GitHub account if you point everyone to GitHub as your official issue tracker? Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: bodhi 2 now live
On 8/20/15, Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com wrote: Thanks for your patience as we roll out this new bodhi version. This update has reached 3 days in testing and can be pushed to stable now if the maintainer wishes This update has reached 14 days in testing and can be pushed to stable now if the maintainer wishes uh, can someone tell me where to push the updates? -- Yours sincerely, Christopher Meng http://awk.io -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: bodhi 2 now live
On 08/19/2015 10:45 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: There will likely be oddities and bugs. Please file them in github so we can prioritize them and get them fixed up. https://github.com/fedora-infra/bodhi/issues Beware: Editing an update with a newer build will wipe out the update. Filed: https://github.com/fedora-infra/bodhi/issues/202 -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: bodhi 2 now live
On 08/20/2015 06:08 AM, Christopher Meng wrote: On 8/20/15, Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com wrote: Thanks for your patience as we roll out this new bodhi version. This update has reached 3 days in testing and can be pushed to stable now if the maintainer wishes This update has reached 14 days in testing and can be pushed to stable now if the maintainer wishes uh, can someone tell me where to push the updates? I am having the same issue. I am unable to find a way to push packages in the GUI. Also, there seem to be pretty nasty connectivity/accessibility issues. Accessibility to bodhi has never been overwhelming, but they now seem to have worsend. I am experiencing page loading times are in the order of several minutes and occasional time outs. Ralf -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
bodhi 2 now live
Greetings. After a longer than expected outage window, I'm happy to report that bodhi2 is now live in production at https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates or https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/ The web interface should be available and working for adding and managing updates and build root overrides as well as karma. The command line tools should be available tomorrow in repos. 'fedpkg update' should work provided you have the latest python-fedora (python-fedora-0.5.5-1). There will likely be oddities and bugs. Please file them in github so we can prioritize them and get them fixed up. https://github.com/fedora-infra/bodhi/issues A collection of known issues and more information can be found at: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Bodhi2 Thanks for your patience as we roll out this new bodhi version. kevin pgpolTsKVkMfs.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ devel-announce mailing list devel-announce@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel-announce
bodhi 2 now live
Greetings. After a longer than expected outage window, I'm happy to report that bodhi2 is now live in production at https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates or https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/ The web interface should be available and working for adding and managing updates and build root overrides as well as karma. The command line tools should be available tomorrow in repos. 'fedpkg update' should work provided you have the latest python-fedora (python-fedora-0.5.5-1). There will likely be oddities and bugs. Please file them in github so we can prioritize them and get them fixed up. https://github.com/fedora-infra/bodhi/issues A collection of known issues and more information can be found at: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Bodhi2 Thanks for your patience as we roll out this new bodhi version. kevin pgpAknZ0JBcbO.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ devel-announce mailing list devel-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel-announce-- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
