tis 2010-12-07 klockan 19:20 -0500 skrev Doug Ledford:
For non-boot devices, loopback works. You only need the hardware if you
are testing boot time capabilities (which, admittedly, is the far more
important aspect of testing for this package).
And if you don't have spare systems with more
On Sat, 2010-12-11 at 00:01 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Software just cannot grasp these things. Or do you volunteer for writing an
NLP processing system for Bodhi, and training all our testers to deal with
its limitations? Why can't we just let a human be the one to decide when to
hit the
Bruno Wolff III wrote:
I am concerned about that. If my karma is going to be treated differently
because I become a proventester, I'd want to know what I am supposed to be
doing differently and not mark something +1 by mistake. I think this
concern goes away in the unicorn filled world where
On Wed, Dec 01, 2010 at 02:02:48PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Wed, 2010-12-01 at 16:54 -0500, Luke Macken wrote:
Yep, that happens. There are also people that add +0 comments to
updates saying Untested. There is an obvious need for more
fine-grained karma types.
I've sent out
On 12/03/2010 04:09 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Adam Williamson wrote:
We're working on this. It won't always be practical, however; in the
current case, for example, you need specific hardware to test mdadm.
Uh, this is md, not dm, you don't need very special HARDWARE (basically only
2 HDDs,
On Sun, 2010-12-05 at 09:41 -0600, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Thu, Dec 02, 2010 at 11:48:13 -0800,
Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
I think it'd probably fit better in the preamble before step 1. Perhaps
after the paragraph 'As a Contributor, you should...' we add a paragraph
On Mon, Dec 06, 2010 at 08:57:42 -0800,
Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
practically speaking that would change very little, because we're not
blocked on getting moderator approval at present. Thankfully a lot of
people are taking up the moderator duties, so anyone who actually
On Thu, Dec 02, 2010 at 11:48:13 -0800,
Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
I think it'd probably fit better in the preamble before step 1. Perhaps
after the paragraph 'As a Contributor, you should...' we add a paragraph
explaining that as a packager you will automatically be given
On Fri, 2010-12-03 at 22:09 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Adam Williamson wrote:
We're working on this. It won't always be practical, however; in the
current case, for example, you need specific hardware to test mdadm.
Uh, this is md, not dm, you don't need very special HARDWARE (basically
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 10:34 PM, Luke Macken lmac...@redhat.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 01:36:18PM +, Petr Pisar wrote:
On 2010-11-29, Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 9:56 AM, Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com wrote:
Proven testers do get copies of
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 1:32 AM, Matt McCutchen m...@mattmccutchen.net wrote:
On Wed, 2010-12-01 at 14:17 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
When software is packaged it's reasonable to expect that someone,
somewhere, uses it; if they don't, it probably shouldn't be packaged. We
need to find those
On Thu, 2010-12-02 at 13:20 +0100, François Cami wrote:
Of course, we could look at things differently: for a package to be
marked critpath, it should have users or be a dependency of some other
package with users.
This is pretty inevitably implicit in the current definition of critpath
-
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 6:03 PM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, 2010-12-02 at 13:20 +0100, François Cami wrote:
Of course, we could look at things differently: for a package to be
marked critpath, it should have users or be a dependency of some other
package with users.
On Thu, 2010-12-02 at 18:20 +0100, François Cami wrote:
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 6:03 PM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, 2010-12-02 at 13:20 +0100, François Cami wrote:
Of course, we could look at things differently: for a package to be
marked critpath, it should have
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 6:31 PM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, 2010-12-02 at 18:20 +0100, François Cami wrote:
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 6:03 PM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, 2010-12-02 at 13:20 +0100, François Cami wrote:
Of course, we could look at
On Wed, Dec 01, 2010 at 02:17:32PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Wed, 2010-12-01 at 16:55 -0500, Doug Ledford wrote:
The comparison is 100% fair because it points out the fundamental
problem with the current policy: if you don't have a paid staff of
testers to make sure testing is done
On Thu, 2010-12-02 at 19:19 +0100, Till Maas wrote:
A big difference is that the testing process is very fuzzy and there is
not much tooling that helps people to test unknown software. E.g. if I
want to review a package, there are several checklists I could use and
there are guidelines that I
On Thu, 2010-12-02 at 14:10 -0500, Doug Ledford wrote:
My package in question (mdadm) is only used in certain circumstances,
but if it isn't right, systems fail to boot. I can certainly see why
something that can render a machine unbootable should be critpath.
However, because only a few
On Wed, 2010-12-01 at 17:32 -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
We don't have an automated process for showing people the rest of the wiki
pages with packager information either. If we added the information to this
page:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process
after step #9,
On Thu, Dec 02, 2010 at 11:25:03AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Thu, 2010-12-02 at 14:10 -0500, Doug Ledford wrote:
That being the case, I test the package fairly rigorously myself. But
this process doesn't take that into account. I test far more things
than you get with a few people
On 12/02/2010 02:25 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Thu, 2010-12-02 at 14:10 -0500, Doug Ledford wrote:
My package in question (mdadm) is only used in certain circumstances,
but if it isn't right, systems fail to boot. I can certainly see why
something that can render a machine unbootable
On Thu, 2010-12-02 at 15:43 -0500, Clyde E. Kunkel wrote:
That being the case, I test the package fairly rigorously myself. But
this process doesn't take that into account. I test far more things
than you get with a few people just doing smoke tests, but the smoke
tests are actually the
On Thu, 2010-12-02 at 12:30 -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
On Thu, Dec 02, 2010 at 11:25:03AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Thu, 2010-12-02 at 14:10 -0500, Doug Ledford wrote:
That being the case, I test the package fairly rigorously myself. But
this process doesn't take that into
On Thu, Dec 02, 2010 at 01:16:18PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Thu, 2010-12-02 at 12:30 -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
On Thu, Dec 02, 2010 at 11:25:03AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Thu, 2010-12-02 at 14:10 -0500, Doug Ledford wrote:
That being the case, I test the package
On Thu, 2010-12-02 at 14:22 -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
* Try and test in a reasonably user-ish environment, not your own highly
customized one; if this means using a separate user account or a VM, do
Note about this second bullet: I'm not sure this is good advice. There's
been quite
On 11/30/2010 05:50 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 3:20 AM, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at
mailto:kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote:
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
I am sorry but somebody does not did his job? It is not the
job of
anyone to test packages
On Wed, 2010-12-01 at 13:23 -0500, Doug Ledford wrote:
That being said, F14 went out with a broken mdadm *purely* because of
this policy.
Evidently my update was approved somewhere along the way, but because of
the volume of bodhi spam I get, I missed it.
...so what you're saying is that
On Wed, 2010-12-01 at 13:23 -0500, Doug Ledford wrote:
So, for anyone that cares, I will posit a maxim that you can't create a
policy that creates an unbreakable roadblock without also creating
either A) a job who's responsibility it is to clear said roadblocks in a
reasonable period of time
On Wed, 2010-12-01 at 21:12 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Adam Williamson wrote:
You can get an exception to the policy with majority approval from FESCo.
That exception process is a joke! It takes too long to get approval from 2
people, one in a medium-sized group and the other in a very
On 12/01/2010 01:41 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Wed, 2010-12-01 at 13:23 -0500, Doug Ledford wrote:
That being said, F14 went out with a broken mdadm *purely* because of
this policy.
Evidently my update was approved somewhere along the way, but because of
the volume of bodhi spam I get,
On Wed, Dec 01, 2010 at 10:41:20AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Wed, 2010-12-01 at 13:23 -0500, Doug Ledford wrote:
That being said, F14 went out with a broken mdadm *purely* because of
this policy.
Evidently my update was approved somewhere along the way, but because of
the
On 12/01/2010 04:40 PM, Luke Macken wrote:
On Wed, Dec 01, 2010 at 10:41:20AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Wed, 2010-12-01 at 13:23 -0500, Doug Ledford wrote:
That being said, F14 went out with a broken mdadm *purely* because of
this policy.
Evidently my update was approved somewhere
On Wed, Dec 01, 2010 at 04:49:07PM -0500, Doug Ledford wrote:
On 12/01/2010 04:40 PM, Luke Macken wrote:
On Wed, Dec 01, 2010 at 10:41:20AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Wed, 2010-12-01 at 13:23 -0500, Doug Ledford wrote:
That being said, F14 went out with a broken mdadm *purely*
On 12/01/2010 04:35 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Wed, 2010-12-01 at 16:22 -0500, Doug Ledford wrote:
If the ticket can be allowed to languish that long, then I don't feel in
the least bit guilty that I didn't drop my other Red Hat
responsibilities on the floor when the ticket was finally
On Wed, 2010-12-01 at 16:54 -0500, Luke Macken wrote:
Yep, that happens. There are also people that add +0 comments to
updates saying Untested. There is an obvious need for more
fine-grained karma types.
I've sent out notes to the test list to ask people not to do either of
those things in
On Wed, 2010-12-01 at 16:55 -0500, Doug Ledford wrote:
The comparison is 100% fair because it points out the fundamental
problem with the current policy: if you don't have a paid staff of
testers to make sure testing is done in a timely fashion, then you have
absolutely no business gating
On 12/01/2010 03:17 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
I don't really see any reason why *everyone* who's a packager shouldn't
also have signed up to be a proven tester by now. I'd like to ask if
anyone has a perception that it's a hard process to get involved in, or
if they got the impression that
On Wed, 2010-12-01 at 15:53 -0700, Nathanael D. Noblet wrote:
On 12/01/2010 03:17 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
I don't really see any reason why *everyone* who's a packager shouldn't
also have signed up to be a proven tester by now. I'd like to ask if
anyone has a perception that it's a hard
On 12/01/2010 04:06 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Wed, 2010-12-01 at 15:53 -0700, Nathanael D. Noblet wrote:
On 12/01/2010 03:17 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
I don't really see any reason why *everyone* who's a packager shouldn't
also have signed up to be a proven tester by now. I'd like to ask
On Wed, 2010-12-01 at 16:15 -0700, Nathanael D. Noblet wrote:
fedora-easy-karma makes it very, very easy. Have you tried it? You just
run it, at a console, and it detects all the packages you have installed
from updates-testing, gives you the description of each, and asks you to
provide
On Wed, Dec 01, 2010 at 02:17:32PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
The concept of having a policy requiring updates to be tested before
they're issued is really no different. I think one point where we've
fallen over is that it wasn't sufficiently well discussed / communicated
in advance that
On Wed, 2010-12-01 at 15:53 -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
I don't really see any reason why *everyone* who's a packager shouldn't
also have signed up to be a proven tester by now. I'd like to ask if
anyone has a perception that it's a hard process to get involved in, or
if they got the
On Wed, 2010-12-01 at 14:17 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
[...] I think we need to be
careful of the mindset that says 'we can't enforce any standards in
Fedora because it's a volunteer project so we must just accept what
people are willing to give us'.
Even though packaging in Fedora is a
On Wed, Dec 01, 2010 at 03:59:02PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Wed, 2010-12-01 at 15:53 -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
I don't really see any reason why *everyone* who's a packager shouldn't
also have signed up to be a proven tester by now. I'd like to ask if
anyone has a
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 3:20 AM, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.atwrote:
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
I am sorry but somebody does not did his job? It is not the job of
anyone to test packages for you. They are merely helping out and we
will get more help if we express gratitude instead of a
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
You believe that it is fine to test for Fedora 14 and push for Fedora 13
without testing for that release explicitly.
Or the opposite, for that matter.
Kevin Kofler
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 9:56 AM, Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com wrote:
Hello,
Few days ago I started to get very usefull notifications that my
critical package, mingetty-1.08-6.fc13, `has been in 'testing' status
for over 2 weeks, and has yet to be approved.'
I doubt such mails help me as the
On 2010-11-29, Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 9:56 AM, Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com wrote:
Proven testers do get copies of these emails (dozens of them) and its
also summarised in the updates-testing report for all to see.
Oh, I thought t...@l.f.o.
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 1:36 PM, Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com wrote:
On 2010-11-29, Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 9:56 AM, Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com wrote:
Proven testers do get copies of these emails (dozens of them) and its
also summarised in the
On 11/29/2010 02:46 PM, Peter Robinson wrote:
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 1:36 PM, Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com wrote:
On 2010-11-29, Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 9:56 AM, Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com wrote:
Proven testers do get copies of these emails
On 2010-11-29, Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 1:36 PM, Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com wrote:
On 2010-11-29, Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 9:56 AM, Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com wrote:
Proven testers do get copies of these
On 11/29/2010 08:04 PM, Petr Pisar wrote:
I do not get the idea why I should filter some irrelevant mails if
better is to not sent them. Especially if I cannot solve the subject of
the mail. Yeah, the subject is somobody does not did his job. I cannot
imagine the knowledge would help me in my
On 2010-11-29, Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/29/2010 08:04 PM, Petr Pisar wrote:
I do not get the idea why I should filter some irrelevant mails if
better is to not sent them. Especially if I cannot solve the subject of
the mail. Yeah, the subject is somobody does not did his
On Mon, 2010-11-29 at 14:34 +, Petr Pisar wrote:
I do not get the idea why I should filter some irrelevant mails if
better is to not sent them. Especially if I cannot solve the subject of
the mail. Yeah, the subject is somobody does not did his job. I cannot
imagine the knowledge would
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
I am sorry but somebody does not did his job? It is not the job of
anyone to test packages for you. They are merely helping out and we
will get more help if we express gratitude instead of a sense of
entitlement.
But this is exactly why the current policy which
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 09:33:46AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Mon, 2010-11-29 at 14:34 +, Petr Pisar wrote:
I do not get the idea why I should filter some irrelevant mails if
better is to not sent them. Especially if I cannot solve the subject of
the mail. Yeah, the subject is
On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 16:11:37 + (UTC), Petr wrote:
On 2010-11-29, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 11/29/2010 08:04 PM, Petr Pisar wrote:
I do not get the idea why I should filter some irrelevant mails if
better is to not sent them. Especially if I cannot solve the subject of
the mail.
Well,
On Mon, 2010-11-29 at 14:34 +, Petr Pisar wrote:
On 2010-11-29, Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 1:36 PM, Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com wrote:
On 2010-11-29, Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 9:56 AM, Petr Pisar
58 matches
Mail list logo
