On 07/06/2010 12:15 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Sat, 03 Jul 2010 19:55:27 +0200
Till Maasopensou...@till.name wrote:
On Fri, Jul 02, 2010 at 10:33:04PM +0200, Till Maas wrote:
On Fri, Jul 02, 2010 at 12:48:43PM -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
I have updated the page.
Does it look clear now?
On Sat, 03 Jul 2010 19:55:27 +0200
Till Maas opensou...@till.name wrote:
On Fri, Jul 02, 2010 at 10:33:04PM +0200, Till Maas wrote:
On Fri, Jul 02, 2010 at 12:48:43PM -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
I have updated the page.
Does it look clear now? Re-wording or tweaks very welcome.
On Sun, 2010-07-04 at 17:27 +0200, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote:
On Sun, Jul 4, 2010 at 1:27 PM, Till Maas opensou...@till.name wrote:
On Sun, Jul 04, 2010 at 12:34:59PM +0200, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote:
On Sun, Jul 4, 2010 at 10:34 AM, Till Maas opensou...@till.name wrote:
On Sun, Jul
Michael Schwendt wrote:
One can quickly see that several (if not many) of them are due
to orphans/retired packages in Fedora 12. And due to violated upgrade
paths (e.g. compat-db):
That just proves that we should avoid retiring packages, but try to keep
them alive as long as we can, even if
On Sun, Jul 04, 2010 at 01:32:16AM +0200, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote:
Could a flag be added to only output the package names, so that I can
pipe the output directly to yum? Or even better, have that flag
automatically cause the bodhi client to invoke yum with
--enable-repo=updates-testing
Broken deps in Fedora 13 + updates + updates-testing when
also enabling Fedora 12 + updates + updates-testing.
One can quickly see that several (if not many) of them are due
to orphans/retired packages in Fedora 12. And due to violated upgrade
paths (e.g. compat-db):
Summary of broken
On Sun, Jul 04, 2010 at 12:34:59PM +0200, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote:
On Sun, Jul 4, 2010 at 10:34 AM, Till Maas opensou...@till.name wrote:
On Sun, Jul 04, 2010 at 01:32:16AM +0200, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote:
Could a flag be added to only output the package names, so that I can
pipe
On Sun, Jul 04, 2010 at 12:31:57PM +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
Broken deps in Fedora 13 + updates + updates-testing when
also enabling Fedora 12 + updates + updates-testing.
One can quickly see that several (if not many) of them are due
to orphans/retired packages in Fedora 12. And due
On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 13:32:14 +0200, Till wrote:
On Sun, Jul 04, 2010 at 12:31:57PM +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
Broken deps in Fedora 13 + updates + updates-testing when
also enabling Fedora 12 + updates + updates-testing.
One can quickly see that several (if not many) of them are
On Sun, Jul 04, 2010 at 02:06:08PM +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 13:32:14 +0200, Till wrote:
On Sun, Jul 04, 2010 at 12:31:57PM +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
Broken deps in Fedora 13 + updates + updates-testing when
also enabling Fedora 12 + updates +
On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 14:40:20 +0200, Till wrote:
It's fairly easy to verify other broken deps, too:
http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/compat-db-4.7.25-3.fc13
For me it is not that easy, because the information is confusion (or not
clearly arranged) or not directly accessible, e.g. to
On Sun, Jul 04, 2010 at 04:47:19PM +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 14:40:20 +0200, Till wrote:
It's fairly easy to verify other broken deps, too:
http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/compat-db-4.7.25-3.fc13
For me it is not that easy, because the information is
If there are any discrepancy with the proventesters critpath policy then
please feel free to file a ticket with FESCo and allow our elected officials
decide the fate of this.
-AdamM (From Android)
On Jul 2, 2010 8:16 PM, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote:
Will Woods wrote:
The main
Adam Miller wrote:
If there are any discrepancy with the proventesters critpath policy then
please feel free to file a ticket with FESCo and allow our elected
officials decide the fate of this.
There isn't any such discrepancy, it's the policy which is broken and FESCo
which refuses to
On Fri, 2010-07-02 at 18:24 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 07/02/2010 06:20 PM, Will Woods wrote:
The main reasons we want to perform testing are things like: to avoid
pushing updates with broken dependencies, or updates that cause serious
regressions requiring manual intervention /
On Sat, 03 Jul 2010 10:05:07 -0700, Adam wrote:
On Fri, 2010-07-02 at 18:24 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 07/02/2010 06:20 PM, Will Woods wrote:
The main reasons we want to perform testing are things like: to avoid
pushing updates with broken dependencies, or updates that cause
On Sat, 2010-07-03 at 20:40 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
That only handles a subset of the 'broken dependencies' problem. We've
already had an example this year of a dependency issue the proposed
autoqa depcheck test wouldn't catch, and Michael's script didn't - the
nss-softokn update
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 12:37 AM, Luke Macken lmac...@redhat.com wrote:
Hi,
I just pushed a version 0.7.5 of bodhi into production. This release
contains the following notable changes:
proventesters strict critical path update handling
On Thu, Jul 01, 2010 at 03:13:55PM -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
On 7/1/10 2:55 PM, Till Maas wrote:
But I guess somehow it boils down to
the majority wants that other people to work for them, which might
even be true. But in a FOSS community I doubt it is very healthy to
follow this too
On Thu, 2010-07-01 at 06:33 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Fedora Legacy has shown how well this works… not!
I completely agree with Ralf Corsepius and Tom Lane on this subject: this
policy is very unhelpful, and applying it to security updates is just
totally insane. We're going to see
On 07/02/2010 06:20 PM, Will Woods wrote:
The main reasons we want to perform testing are things like: to avoid
pushing updates with broken dependencies, or updates that cause serious
regressions requiring manual intervention / emergency update
replacements. That sort of thing.
Should be
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 02:48:26PM -0400, Luke Macken wrote:
For critical path updates to be approved for pushing to the stable
repository, they now require a minimum karma of 2, consisting of a +1
from a single proventester, and a +1 from another authenticated user.
I am just wondering, is
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 7/2/10 11:27 AM, Till Maas wrote:
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 02:48:26PM -0400, Luke Macken wrote:
For critical path updates to be approved for pushing to the stable
repository, they now require a minimum karma of 2, consisting of a +1
from a
On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 20:27:27 +0200
Till Maas opensou...@till.name wrote:
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 02:48:26PM -0400, Luke Macken wrote:
For critical path updates to be approved for pushing to the stable
repository, they now require a minimum karma of 2, consisting of a
+1 from a single
On Fri, Jul 02, 2010 at 12:48:43PM -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 20:27:27 +0200
Till Maas opensou...@till.name wrote:
Also they are about the important packages,
which is a subset of critical path.
Superset. :) In any case, the items mentioned there should be
Will Woods wrote:
The main reasons we want to perform testing are things like: to avoid
pushing updates with broken dependencies
The right way to prevent that is to get AutoQA completed, which will, if it
works as intended, automatically detect and throw out updates with broken
dependencies
On 07/01/2010 12:47 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Jesse Keating wrote:
There is a slight wrinkle in that right now, the bodhi code will
automatically request a push of an item that reaches this karma threshold,
and I don't believe there is a way yet to force it to wait for even
greater amounts of
On Thu, 2010-07-01 at 07:00 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Dave Airlie wrote:
So in your mind, there is a majority of people on your side, but they
are just too lazy to stand for election and take over the board?
s/too lazy/too busy doing actual work/
(as opposed to wasting their time with
On Thu, Jul 01, 2010 at 05:23:06PM +1000, Dave Airlie wrote:
On Thu, 2010-07-01 at 07:00 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Dave Airlie wrote:
So in your mind, there is a majority of people on your side, but they
are just too lazy to stand for election and take over the board?
s/too lazy/too
On Thu, Jul 01, 2010 at 12:31:06AM -0400, James Antill wrote:
On Thu, 2010-07-01 at 00:20 +0200, Till Maas wrote:
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 12:50:53PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
You can already view all pending critpath updates in Bodhi's web
interface and command line client, as per
Once upon a time, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at said:
No. It means there haven't been enough such candidates. People did vote for
me. But alone against 8 people who didn't agree with me, I wasn't able to
achieve anything.
If you give people ballots with only Evil Dictator on them, of
On Thu, 2010-07-01 at 06:29 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Adam Williamson wrote:
...or convince enough others of your position that they will vote for
the candidates you favour in our leadership elections. Since there've
been several of these since you first stated you don't approve of
On Wed, 2010-06-30 at 18:38 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
2. libtiff.fc12 and libpng.fc12 are still lonely with zero karma. Is the
restrictive policy in force for F-12 too?
As far as I'm aware, no. We're starting at F-13.
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk:
On Thu, 2010-07-01 at 01:26 -0400, Luke Macken wrote:
On 07/01/2010 12:47 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Jesse Keating wrote:
There is a slight wrinkle in that right now, the bodhi code will
automatically request a push of an item that reaches this karma threshold,
and I don't believe there is a
On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 18:38:03 -0400
Tom Lane t...@redhat.com wrote:
I see that libtiff.fc13 and libpng.fc13 are now showing critical path
approved, for which I thank those who did the work.
Thanks. ;)
I remain a bit
unclear about a couple of things:
1. Bodhi is showing both packages as
On 07/01/2010 03:38 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 18:38:03 -0400
Tom Lanet...@redhat.com wrote:
I see that libtiff.fc13 and libpng.fc13 are now showing critical path
approved, for which I thank those who did the work.
Thanks. ;)
I remain a bit
unclear about a couple of
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 7/1/10 2:48 AM, Till Maas wrote:
How do you know who is a minority and who is not? I still wonder why
there are so many claims that the majority of Fedora maintainers or
users want to manually test all updates, but still the majority is not
On Thu, Jul 01, 2010 at 02:13:59PM -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
On 7/1/10 2:48 AM, Till Maas wrote:
How do you know who is a minority and who is not? I still wonder why
there are so many claims that the majority of Fedora maintainers or
users want to manually test all updates, but still the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 7/1/10 2:55 PM, Till Maas wrote:
But I guess somehow it boils down to
the majority wants that other people to work for them, which might
even be true. But in a FOSS community I doubt it is very healthy to
follow this too much.
I bet if we
On Thu, 2010-07-01 at 11:48 +0200, Till Maas wrote:
On Thu, Jul 01, 2010 at 05:23:06PM +1000, Dave Airlie wrote:
On Thu, 2010-07-01 at 07:00 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Dave Airlie wrote:
So in your mind, there is a majority of people on your side, but they
are just too lazy to stand
Luke Macken lmac...@redhat.com writes:
Critical path package[0] updates now require positive karma from two
proventesters[1], and a single +1 from one other community member.
Even for security updates? My experience says that this requirement
will prevent me from *ever* pushing updates. Case
Tom Lane wrote:
Even for security updates? My experience says that this requirement
will prevent me from*ever* pushing updates. Case in point: libtiff,
which is a critpath package, has been in testing with a significant
security update for a week now. Its karma is still zero. When I get
On Wed, 2010-06-30 at 11:35 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Luke Macken lmac...@redhat.com writes:
Critical path package[0] updates now require positive karma from two
proventesters[1], and a single +1 from one other community member.
Even for security updates? My experience says that this
On 06/30/2010 06:18 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Wed, 2010-06-30 at 11:35 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
The proposed policy might be workable if we had a surplus of
proventester manpower available, but we obviously have not got that.
And you think re-allocating the already scarce manpower to this
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 11:35:17AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Luke Macken lmac...@redhat.com writes:
Critical path package[0] updates now require positive karma from two
proventesters[1], and a single +1 from one other community member.
Even for security updates? My experience says that this
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 6/30/10 9:31 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 06/30/2010 06:18 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Wed, 2010-06-30 at 11:35 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
The proposed policy might be workable if we had a surplus of
proventester manpower available, but we
On Wed, 2010-06-30 at 11:35 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
I would be willing to accept *negative* karma from more than
one proventester as being an override. But it is utterly unacceptable
for inaction to represent a veto.
I would argue that it's utterly unacceptable for untested code to be
pushed
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 6/30/10 10:48 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
My perception is: marketing has directed into a direction which drains
away man-power into an uncertain process whose only immediate effect is
bureaucracy, whose long term outcome is uncertain and who
On Wed, 2010-06-30 at 11:35 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Luke Macken lmac...@redhat.com writes:
Critical path package[0] updates now require positive karma from two
proventesters[1], and a single +1 from one other community member.
Even for security updates? My experience says that this
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 6/30/10 11:09 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 06/30/2010 07:58 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 6/30/10 10:48 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
My perception is: marketing has directed into a direction which
On Wed, 2010-06-30 at 11:25 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
Well yes, you always can be relied upon for the cheery optimistic
outlook :)
If I were perceiving competence in Fedora's leadership, my comments
would sound differently.
You're welcome to try your hand at leadership, or find a
On Tue, 2010-06-29 at 18:37 -0400, Luke Macken wrote:
proventesters strict critical path update handling
Critical path package[0] updates now require positive karma from two
proventesters[1], and a single +1 from one other community
Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com writes:
On Wed, 2010-06-30 at 11:35 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
The proposed policy might be workable if we had a surplus of
proventester manpower available, but we obviously have not got that.
See above, you cannot judge this on current experience.
Yes I can.
On Wed, 2010-06-30 at 15:04 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com writes:
On Wed, 2010-06-30 at 11:35 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
The proposed policy might be workable if we had a surplus of
proventester manpower available, but we obviously have not got that.
See above,
Will Woods wwo...@redhat.com writes:
Is it really so hard for you to find someone to test the thing? If so,
maybe you could use the assistance of a co-maintainer?
Huh? I don't need a co-maintainer, I need testers. proventesters,
even. Or are you suggesting that the way to deal with this is
Michael Cronenworth m...@cchtml.com writes:
Should the bodhi whine mail be CC'd to the test mailing list in a
digest-type mail like the updates-testing pushes?
+1. As is, old-package whine mail is going to be directed to somebody
who *isn't allowed to do anything about it*. A more
On Wed, 2010-06-30 at 15:04 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com writes:
On Wed, 2010-06-30 at 11:35 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
The proposed policy might be workable if we had a surplus of
proventester manpower available, but we obviously have not got that.
See above,
On Wed, 2010-06-30 at 15:08 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Will Woods wwo...@redhat.com writes:
Is it really so hard for you to find someone to test the thing? If so,
maybe you could use the assistance of a co-maintainer?
Huh? I don't need a co-maintainer, I need testers.
I was suggesting that -
Will Woods wwo...@redhat.com writes:
On Wed, 2010-06-30 at 15:04 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Yes I can. I have two critpath packages that are in testing with
security bugs, both pretty small and easy to test, and both still have
karma zero. That seems to me to be adequate proof that there's not
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 06/30/2010 03:29 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Will Woods wwo...@redhat.com writes:
On Wed, 2010-06-30 at 15:04 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Yes I can. I have two critpath packages that are in testing with
security bugs, both pretty small and easy to test,
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 8:29 PM, Tom Lane t...@redhat.com wrote:
Will Woods wwo...@redhat.com writes:
On Wed, 2010-06-30 at 15:04 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Yes I can. I have two critpath packages that are in testing with
security bugs, both pretty small and easy to test, and both still have
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 8:37 PM, Stephen Gallagher sgall...@redhat.com wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 06/30/2010 03:29 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Will Woods wwo...@redhat.com writes:
On Wed, 2010-06-30 at 15:04 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Yes I can. I have two critpath
On Wed, 2010-06-30 at 15:37 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
A suggestion: when critical path updates hit updates-testing, a
notification should go to both devel@lists.fedoraproject.org and
q...@lists.fedoraproject.org to encourage testing.
This would probably be too high traffic. We're
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 03:37:11PM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
A suggestion: when critical path updates hit updates-testing, a
notification should go to both devel@lists.fedoraproject.org and
q...@lists.fedoraproject.org to encourage testing.
The qa-list has already lost a lot of it's
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 6/30/10 12:29 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Will Woods wwo...@redhat.com writes:
On Wed, 2010-06-30 at 15:04 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Yes I can. I have two critpath packages that are in testing with
security bugs, both pretty small and easy to test, and
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 12:50:53PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Wed, 2010-06-30 at 15:37 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
A suggestion: when critical path updates hit updates-testing, a
notification should go to both devel@lists.fedoraproject.org and
q...@lists.fedoraproject.org to
Jesse Keating jkeat...@j2solutions.net writes:
On 6/30/10 12:29 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
I mentioned libtiff in my first comment in this thread. The other one
is libpng. But in any case, are maintainers supposed to have to scare
up testers on their own? Especially for packages that are supposed
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 6/30/10 3:38 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Jesse Keating jkeat...@j2solutions.net writes:
On 6/30/10 12:29 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
I mentioned libtiff in my first comment in this thread. The other one
is libpng. But in any case, are maintainers supposed to
Luke Macken wrote:
Critical path package[0] updates now require positive karma from two
proventesters[1], and a single +1 from one other community member.
Why two? The policy FESCo voted said one (plus one other community member,
giving a total karma of 2).
Kevin Kofler
--
devel
Adam Williamson wrote:
...or convince enough others of your position that they will vote for
the candidates you favour in our leadership elections. Since there've
been several of these since you first stated you don't approve of
Fedora's leadership, it seems the electorate doesn't agree with
On Thu, 2010-07-01 at 00:20 +0200, Till Maas wrote:
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 12:50:53PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
You can already view all pending critpath updates in Bodhi's web
interface and command line client, as per Luke's initial mail.
But a yum enhancement or plugin to restrict
On Thu, 2010-07-01 at 06:29 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Adam Williamson wrote:
...or convince enough others of your position that they will vote for
the candidates you favour in our leadership elections. Since there've
been several of these since you first stated you don't approve of
Jesse Keating wrote:
One of the big reasons the manpower was scarce is we did not have a
proper system to locate, train, and promote new people into this
manpower. The QA team has made great strides into fixing that and we
do now have a process in place, and a good stream of incoming people
Adam Williamson wrote:
I'd remind you that we've actually already had a period of several weeks
where this system was active - before the F13 release, when critpath
package pushes required feedback from a member of qa or releng - and
that worked out fine, the packages got pushed and we did the
Jesse Keating wrote:
There is a slight wrinkle in that right now, the bodhi code will
automatically request a push of an item that reaches this karma threshold,
and I don't believe there is a way yet to force it to wait for even
greater amounts of karma. I believe that fine grained tuning of
Tom Lane wrote:
The right way to go about this is to ramp up proventester manpower
first before making it a required gating factor.
+1
Why was this implemented BEFORE proventester requests were approved? If we
don't even have the mentoring process defined, then that should have
happened
I wrote:
Why two? The policy FESCo voted said one (plus one other community member,
giving a total karma of 2).
Nevermind, I just noticed the later mail from Luke correcting this.
Kevin Kofler
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Dave Airlie wrote:
So in your mind, there is a majority of people on your side, but they
are just too lazy to stand for election and take over the board?
s/too lazy/too busy doing actual work/
(as opposed to wasting their time with politics or bureaucracy)
Have you noticed that all the people
On 06/29/2010 06:37 PM, Luke Macken wrote:
You can get a list of critical path updates using the bodhi web interface:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/critpath?release=F13untested=True
Oops, broken link. Sorry about that.
79 matches
Mail list logo
