On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 04:59:30AM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Luke Macken wrote:
Neither of you have mentioned your definition of the word success.
Care to enlighten us?
Success is the achievement of a worthwhile goal. If the original goal which
was set is worthless, succeeding at it is
Josh Boyer wrote:
There are a number of people who disagree with the value of that goal,
including most of the past and current FESCo.
You conveniently ignored the part of the mail where I pointed out WHY that
goal is broken. Why are we trying to emulate the failed Fedora Legacy
process
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 05:10:36PM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Josh Boyer wrote:
There are a number of people who disagree with the value of that goal,
including most of the past and current FESCo.
You conveniently ignored the part of the mail where I pointed out WHY that
goal is broken.
No,
* Kevin Kofler [10/06/2010 17:21] :
Why are we trying to emulate the failed Fedora Legacy
process rather than the successful Fedora Extras one? Why can't we learn
from our past?
I think you're rather quick to conclude that Extras succeded because it
allowed maintainers to
On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 04:59:30 +0200
Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote:
Now, if the policies that are being approved do not actually
benefit the greater good of the community, we have bigger problems.
Yet that's exactly the problem we're having. :-(
snip...
So why are we now
On Tue, 2010-06-08 at 16:51 -0400, Luke Macken wrote:
Fedora 13
* 231 updates automatically pushed due to karma (6.49%)
On Tue, 2010-06-08 at 21:20 -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote:
On Tue, 2010-06-08 at 16:51 -0400, Luke Macken wrote:
Fedora 13
Luke Macken wrote:
By success I mean that I felt we were successful in drafting,
implementing, deploying, and utilizing the mentioned policies as
expected, and the results show increased community engagement.
This definition of success does not match mine nor the one you'll find in
a
On Wed, 2010-06-09 at 08:38 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Luke Macken wrote:
By success I mean that I felt we were successful in drafting,
implementing, deploying, and utilizing the mentioned policies as
expected, and the results show increased community engagement.
This definition of
On 06/09/2010 08:54 AM, Luke Macken wrote:
On Wed, 2010-06-09 at 08:38 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Luke Macken wrote:
By success I mean that I felt we were successful in drafting,
implementing, deploying, and utilizing the mentioned policies as
expected, and the results show increased
On 06/08/2010 10:51 PM, Luke Macken wrote:
I recently wrote some code to generate detailed statistics of Fedora EPEL
updates within bodhi. Eventually this will be auto-generated and exposed
within bodhi itself, but for now here are the initial metrics.
This report definitely conveys the
On Tue, 8 Jun 2010 16:51:36 -0400 (EDT), Luke wrote:
=
Bodhi Statistics Report (Generated on June 8th, 2010)
=
Out of 17412 total updates, 2958 received feedback (16.99%)
Out of 1045
On Tue, Jun 08, 2010 at 04:51:36PM -0400, Luke Macken wrote:
You can find the code that generates these statistics here:
https://fedorahosted.org/bodhi/browser/bodhi/tools/metrics.py
https://fedorahosted.org/bodhi/browser/bodhi/tools/log_stats.py. If you have
any ideas or suggestions for
On Wed, Jun 09, 2010 at 10:58:15AM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 06/09/2010 10:48 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
Well the only person I see mentioning quality is Kevin. And for some
reason he is expecting it immediately
You can't claim that there are
On Wed, Jun 09, 2010 at 09:51:59AM +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jun 2010 16:51:36 -0400 (EDT), Luke wrote:
=
Bodhi Statistics Report (Generated on June 8th, 2010)
=
Out
On 06/09/2010 05:12 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
That is true if you are making the assumption that the package maintainer did
no testing themselves. I would hope that isn't the common case.
There are well known cases of that happening. Kevin has been public
about his position on that.
On Wednesday 09 June 2010, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
There are well known cases of that happening. Kevin has been public
about his position on that. Hopefully we can automatically catch and
prevent the obvious breakages soon.
For the record, I did test (on one release) the latest bunch of
Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
I can't agree that this update policy is success (in any dictionary).
Since I'm forced to wait
two weeks for pushing into stable, I have more tickets about packages
that I've already fixed. Users want fixes immediately, they are not
interested in some processes. Many
On Wed, 9 Jun 2010, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
I can't agree that this update policy is success (in any dictionary).
Since I'm forced to wait
two weeks for pushing into stable, I have more tickets about packages
that I've already fixed. Users want fixes immediately, they
On Wed, 2010-06-09 at 09:35 +0200, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
On 06/08/2010 10:51 PM, Luke Macken wrote:
I recently wrote some code to generate detailed statistics of Fedora EPEL
updates within bodhi. Eventually this will be auto-generated and exposed
within bodhi itself, but for now here
Luke's dictionary is more correct than yours.
anyone else see how horrid the line I just wrote sounded in your head
when you read it? That's what this thread sounds like. Did we really need to
take some raw numbers that Luke was kind enough to put together and make it
into some sort of QA
On Wed, 2010-06-09 at 09:10 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 06/09/2010 08:54 AM, Luke Macken wrote:
On Wed, 2010-06-09 at 08:38 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Luke Macken wrote:
By success I mean that I felt we were successful in drafting,
implementing, deploying, and utilizing the mentioned
On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 8:31 AM, Adam Miller
maxamill...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
Did we really need to
take some raw numbers that Luke was kind enough to put together and make it
into some sort of QA methods holy war?
The lesson here is that for data mining to make sense there must a
consensus
On 06/09/2010 01:18 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
If the packages have good quality, that means more testing is NOT
needed, no matter what the actual amount of testing was.
Apart from the Bodhi issue, I disagree with the logic of your statement.
Quality doesn't exist (or at least is not provable) in
On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 12:03:50 -0400, Luke wrote:
According to the new acceptance critera, updates will have to spend
some minimum amount of time in updates-testing, currently one week.
Now, as to whether or not bodhi should auto-push after that week, that
I'm not quite sure.
Rest assured that
On Tue, 2010-06-08 at 16:51 -0400, Luke Macken wrote:
I recently wrote some code to generate detailed statistics of Fedora EPEL
updates within bodhi. Eventually this will be auto-generated and exposed
within bodhi itself, but for now here are the initial metrics.
This report definitely
On Wed, 2010-06-09 at 09:51 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
from times when the fedora-easy-karma script wasn't available and
didn't make it possible to mass-vote on updates.
easy-karma doesn't allow you to mass vote, you still have to vote on
each update individually. it simply streamlines the
Luke Macken wrote:
Neither of you have mentioned your definition of the word success.
Care to enlighten us?
Success is the achievement of a worthwhile goal. If the original goal which
was set is worthless, succeeding at it is meaningless.
Now, if the policies that are being approved do not
Adam Williamson wrote:
Users also want regressions not to happen
This is exactly why we need quick fixes, i.e. direct stable pushes: to be
able to push a fixed update IMMEDIATELY if somebody caught a regression.
Kevin Kofler
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
On Thu, 2010-06-10 at 05:03 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Adam Williamson wrote:
Users also want regressions not to happen
This is exactly why we need quick fixes, i.e. direct stable pushes: to be
able to push a fixed update IMMEDIATELY if somebody caught a regression.
We danced that tango
/bodhi/tools/log_stats.py. If you have
any ideas or suggestions for different types of metrics to generate, or if you
find any bugs in my code, please let me know.
luke
=
Bodhi Statistics Report (Generated on June 8th, 2010
Luke Macken wrote:
This report definitely conveys the shortcomings in our testing, however,
it does show us improving with each release. For Fedora 13, we implemented
the No Frozen Rawhide process with improved Critical Path policies, which
were definitely a success. With these enhanced
On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 7:46 PM, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote:
Luke Macken wrote:
This report definitely conveys the shortcomings in our testing, however,
it does show us improving with each release. For Fedora 13, we implemented
the No Frozen Rawhide process with improved Critical
On Tue, 2010-06-08 at 16:51 -0400, Luke Macken wrote:
Fedora 13
* 3562 updates
* 3065 stable updates
* 427 testing
On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 6:41 PM, Brandon Lozza bran...@pwnage.ca wrote:
On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 7:46 PM, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote:
Luke Macken wrote:
This report definitely conveys the shortcomings in our testing, however,
it does show us improving with each release. For Fedora
On 06/09/2010 10:48 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
Well the only person I see mentioning quality is Kevin. And for some
reason he is expecting it immediately
You can't claim that there are shortcomings in our testing (the exact
words Luke used!) without a
36 matches
Mail list logo
