mån 2010-11-01 klockan 15:12 -0700 skrev Adam Williamson:
> This is a reasonable modification of the idea that an update should only
> require karma for one release (which would be nice if it were true but
> unfortunately isn't). In practice, though, there isn't much wiggle room
> for requiring 'l
On Mon, 2010-11-01 at 22:54 +0100, Henrik Nordström wrote:
> mån 2010-11-01 klockan 10:09 -0700 skrev Adam Williamson:
>
> > I disagree. The evidence you cite does not support this conclusion. We
> > implemented the policies for three releases. There are significant
> > problems with one release.
mån 2010-11-01 klockan 10:09 -0700 skrev Adam Williamson:
> I disagree. The evidence you cite does not support this conclusion. We
> implemented the policies for three releases. There are significant
> problems with one release. This does not justify the conclusion that the
> policies should be en
On Mon, 01 Nov 2010 19:26:43 +0100
Kevin Kofler wrote:
> They also let several completely broken updates through and then
> delayed the FIXES for those updates, exactly as I had been warning
> about all the time.
Cite(s)?
>
> For example, my firstboot update which was required to make the Xfce
Adam Williamson wrote:
> I disagree. The evidence you cite does not support this conclusion. We
> implemented the policies for three releases. There are significant
> problems with one release. This does not justify the conclusion that the
> policies should be entirely repealed.
The evidence in TH
Adam Williamson wrote:
> The policies prevented us from shipping a number of completely broken
> updates, which is exactly what they were intended to do. I don't have a
> command handy to do a search for rejected proposed critpath updates for
> F14, but if you figure it out, you can see the precise
Adam Williamson wrote:
> On the other hand, other scenarios were also brought up, which have not
> come to pass - for instance, the same thing happening to Fedora 13 or
> Fedora 14.
Nonsense. We just do not have enough evidence yet to show such things
happening for F13 and F14. They CAN, and IMHO
Adam Williamson píše v Po 01. 11. 2010 v 10:55 -0700:
> On Mon, 2010-11-01 at 18:51 +0100, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> > > Sorry, but characterizing it as a 'known problem' is misleading. It's
> > > easy to forecast failure, and you'll likely always be correct in *some*
> > > cases if you forecast eno
On Mon, 2010-11-01 at 18:51 +0100, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> > Sorry, but characterizing it as a 'known problem' is misleading. It's
> > easy to forecast failure, and you'll likely always be correct in *some*
> > cases if you forecast enough failures. Only if you precisely forecast
> > only the fail
Adam Williamson píše v Po 01. 11. 2010 v 10:39 -0700:
> On Mon, 2010-11-01 at 18:29 +0100, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> > > It's better to try things, with the proviso that
> > > you accept when they aren't working and withdraw or modify them.
> > It's even better not to dismiss known problems with the
On Mon, 2010-11-01 at 18:29 +0100, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> > On the other hand, other scenarios were also brought up, which have not
> > come to pass - for instance, the same thing happening to Fedora 13 or
> > Fedora 14. If we had simply accepted the predictions of doom and not
> > implemented th
Adam Williamson píše v Po 01. 11. 2010 v 10:08 -0700:
> > > We designed a policy,
> > > put it into effect, now we're observing how well it works and we can
> > > modify its implementation on the fly. It doesn't need to be done in an
> > > adversarial spirit.
> > Given that _this exact scenario_ w
On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 5:08 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> Saying 'oh dear, this might not work, we'd better not try' is rarely a
> good approach, IMHO. It's better to try things, with the proviso that
> you accept when they aren't working and withdraw or modify them.
I would agree with this, if th
On Mon, 2010-11-01 at 03:54 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> There's exactly one constructive thing to do, it's repealing this set of
> policies (Critical Path and Update Acceptance Criteria) in its entirety.
>
> An update should go stable when the maintainer says so, karma should be
> purely infor
On Mon, 2010-11-01 at 02:18 +0100, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> > Kevin, could you *please* not word things like that? There's just no
> > need for it.
> >
> > I already wrote this to -test a couple of days ago:
> >
> > http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2010-October/095135.html
> >
> > a
Adam Williamson wrote:
> I already wrote this to -test a couple of days ago:
>
> http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2010-October/095135.html
>
> and we're discussing it there. I think the thread demonstrates things
> tend to go much more constructively if you avoid throwing words like
Adam Williamson píše v Ne 31. 10. 2010 v 18:06 -0700:
> On Sun, 2010-10-31 at 04:37 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Yet another blatant example of
> > failure of the Update Acceptance Criteria, needlessly exposing our users to
> > critical vulnerabilities.
>
> Kevin, could you *please* not word th
On Sun, 2010-10-31 at 04:37 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Martin Stransky wrote:
> > there's a new Firefox update waiting in Bodhi and we can't push it to
> > stable because of new rules. We recommend you to update to it ASAP as it
> > fixes a public critical 0day vulnerability
> > (https://bugzilla
On Sun, 31 Oct 2010 04:37:38 +0100, Kevin wrote:
> Martin Stransky wrote:
> > there's a new Firefox update waiting in Bodhi and we can't push it to
> > stable because of new rules. We recommend you to update to it ASAP as it
> > fixes a public critical 0day vulnerability
> > (https://bugzilla.mozi
Martin Stransky wrote:
> there's a new Firefox update waiting in Bodhi and we can't push it to
> stable because of new rules. We recommend you to update to it ASAP as it
> fixes a public critical 0day vulnerability
> (https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=607222).
Looks like the F13 build g
20 matches
Mail list logo
