On Mon, 2011-09-12 at 15:22 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Mon, 2011-09-12 at 17:56 +0200, Nils Philippsen wrote:
If there is
not enough karma for his package to bring it into the stable, then there
is probably time to ask somebody (probably on fedora-devel), to test
this
On Tue, 2011-09-13 at 13:22 +0200, Nils Philippsen wrote:
That's only a default, though; you can lower it to 1 when you submit the
update. Also, once a critpath update hits the required threshold - +1
from a proventester, +1 from anyone else (PT or no) - you can manually
push it to
On Fri, 2011-09-09 at 07:06 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 4:13 AM, Nils Philippsen n...@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, 2011-09-08 at 13:16 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
I don't think a maintainer can realistically replace wide-spread user
based testing in a variety of environments.
On Fri, 2011-09-09 at 12:22 +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Sorry, you are mixing two things:
1) One is testing environment and it can be probably well defined,
clean, etc.
And thus incomparable to real-life environments. Mind, I'm not arguing
against some testing (e.g. automated regression
On Mon, 2011-09-12 at 17:56 +0200, Nils Philippsen wrote:
If there is
not enough karma for his package to bring it into the stable, then there
is probably time to ask somebody (probably on fedora-devel), to test
this package.
We have a default of +3 karma for automatic pushes to
Sorry, you are mixing two things:
1) One is testing environment and it can be probably well defined,
clean, etc.
2) The other thing is maintainer mindset. You can try to convince
yourself to take a different look but I doubt it will work. It reminds
me like if you do patch review of your
On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 4:13 AM, Nils Philippsen n...@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, 2011-09-08 at 13:16 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
I don't think a maintainer can realistically replace wide-spread user
based testing in a variety of environments.
I didn't argue that this would be the case, but rather
On 8 September 2011 03:13, Andre Robatino robat...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
If a packager repeatedly submits +1 for updates which turn out later couldn't
possibly have worked in actual testing, then their karma privileges could be
revoked.
Makes sense to me.
Richard.
--
devel mailing list
On 09/07/2011 05:47 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
As someone on the other side of this (although not strongly, I could
be convinced), I don't think thats my concern at all...
* As a maintainer you should only be pushing an update you feel
works/fixes something anyhow. Shouldn't that be an
Hi,
I think a major problem of the current update policy is, that regular
users don't see if there are new package updates in updates-testing,
unless they enable it and I doubt many regular users do this.
So we might think about spreading the word, when a new update of a
software package is
On Sep 7, 2011, at 7:13 PM, Andre Robatino wrote:
My opinion is that packagers should be allowed to
+1 their own packages after a certain delay (1 week, maybe?) if it hasn't
gotten
sufficient karma from others by then, and they do actual testing in a
non-custom
environment (for example,
On Wed, 2011-09-07 at 18:02 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Wed, 2011-09-07 at 18:47 -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
* As a maintainer it's easy to have a env that gets out of sync with
what a QA or end user would use. Ie, you make 20 iterations of a
package to test something, tweak configs
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 12:54 PM, Nils Philippsen n...@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, 2011-09-07 at 18:02 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Wed, 2011-09-07 at 18:47 -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
* As a maintainer it's easy to have a env that gets out of sync with
what a QA or end user would use. Ie,
On Thu, 2011-09-08 at 16:43 +0200, Johannes Lips wrote:
Hi,
I think a major problem of the current update policy is, that regular
users don't see if there are new package updates in updates-testing,
unless they enable it and I doubt many regular users do this.
So we might think about
On Thu, 2011-09-08 at 13:16 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
- A system in good condition (packages verify well, no dupes) that's
used normally, i.e. what you would see being used by normal persons
without any fancy hacks in configuration, or worse, non-config files
owned by packages. Pro: Easy
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 11:54 AM, Nils Philippsen n...@redhat.com wrote:
I think we should define what a vanilla environment is then. One could
argue that either of the following could be described as vanilla:
One thing I done in lieu of a full VM is to test CLI programs under
mock. Of course
On Tue, Sep 06, 2011 at 08:46:50PM -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
It's not being enforced in bodhi, but it should be:
https://fedorahosted.org/bodhi/ticket/277
It is somehow sad that nobody took the time to write a two line patch to
fix this 3 year old bug report:
On Thu, 2011-09-08 at 20:16 +0200, Till Maas wrote:
It's not being enforced in bodhi, but it should be:
https://fedorahosted.org/bodhi/ticket/277
It is somehow sad that nobody took the time to write a two line patch
to
fix this 3 year old bug report:
On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 01:16:50PM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
I don't think a maintainer can realistically replace wide-spread user
based testing in a variety of environments. In light of that, we can
either accept a maintainer +1 as I tested this as I would use it and
it worked (which should
On 09/08/2011 06:27 PM, Till Maas wrote:
On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 01:16:50PM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
I don't think a maintainer can realistically replace wide-spread user
based testing in a variety of environments. In light of that, we can
either accept a maintainer +1 as I tested this as I
On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 08:30:24PM +0200, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
Might be worth adding a flash() to inform why the karma wasn't added.
Done:
https://fedorahosted.org/bodhi/attachment/ticket/277/0001-model.py-Change-karma-from-Submitter-to-0.2.patch
Kind regards
Till
pgpHXAZilkoL0.pgp
On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 06:42:56PM +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
As in components flagged as base/core/critical might restrict the
maintainer from +1 his own component and require more stricter QA
oversight while components that are not flag as base/core/critical might
not?
If a +1
On Thu, 2011-09-08 at 18:42 +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
How about tying the requirement to criteria the component belongs to?
As in components flagged as base/core/critical might restrict the
maintainer from +1 his own component and require more stricter QA
oversight while
On Wed, 2011-09-07 at 18:38 +0100, Richard Hughes wrote:
On 7 September 2011 01:02, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
Is this a Bodhi bug? Or does FESCo expect voluntary compliance /
case-by-case enforcement of this policy?
I'm guilty of this too; when I file an update that's not
On Thu, 2011-09-08 at 20:59 +0200, Till Maas wrote:
On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 06:42:56PM +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
As in components flagged as base/core/critical might restrict the
maintainer from +1 his own component and require more stricter QA
oversight while components that
On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 12:34:25PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Thu, 2011-09-08 at 20:59 +0200, Till Maas wrote:
On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 06:42:56PM +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
As in components flagged as base/core/critical might restrict the
maintainer from +1 his own
On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 03:33:33PM -0400, David Malcolm wrote:
package for a while. If I'm happy with my subsequent testing, then I'll
+1 my own update, on the grounds that I've been viewing the change from
a testing perspective, rather than just from a development perspective.
If not, I'll
On Thu, 2011-09-08 at 22:18 +0200, Till Maas wrote:
It is easy to go in circles if everyone is using +1 with a different
meaning. If you read carefully what I quoted you will notice that I
quoted a proposal to allow +1 comments only from submitters for non
critpath updates. If we use your
On Thu, 2011-09-08 at 22:21 +0200, Till Maas wrote:
On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 03:33:33PM -0400, David Malcolm wrote:
package for a while. If I'm happy with my subsequent testing, then I'll
+1 my own update, on the grounds that I've been viewing the change from
a testing perspective, rather
On Wed, Sep 07, 2011 at 01:38:09PM +1000, Peter Hutterer wrote:
On Tue, Sep 06, 2011 at 07:38:53PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
plus a trac ticket. Whether it has some practical effect or not, it's
clearly against the current policy, and what I'm questioning is whether
Bodhi should be
On Wed, 7 Sep 2011 11:00:57 +1000, PH (Peter) wrote:
sometimes a +1 after weeks in testing is the only or at least easy way to
nudge a package into stable.
e.g: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libXi-1.4.3-2.fc15
even with my +1 still not there, and this isn't the only package I've
On 7 September 2011 01:02, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
Is this a Bodhi bug? Or does FESCo expect voluntary compliance /
case-by-case enforcement of this policy?
I'm guilty of this too; when I file an update that's not getting
enough karma (after a few weeks) then I give it a spin
On Wed, 2011-09-07 at 18:38 +0100, Richard Hughes wrote:
On 7 September 2011 01:02, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
Is this a Bodhi bug? Or does FESCo expect voluntary compliance /
case-by-case enforcement of this policy?
I'm guilty of this too; when I file an update that's not
On Wed, Sep 07, 2011 at 07:20:19PM +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Wed, 7 Sep 2011 11:00:57 +1000, PH (Peter) wrote:
sometimes a +1 after weeks in testing is the only or at least easy way to
nudge a package into stable.
e.g: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libXi-1.4.3-2.fc15
On Wed, 07 Sep 2011 12:15:56 -0700
Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, 2011-09-07 at 18:38 +0100, Richard Hughes wrote:
On 7 September 2011 01:02, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com
wrote:
Is this a Bodhi bug? Or does FESCo expect voluntary compliance /
case-by-case
On Wed, 2011-09-07 at 18:47 -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Wed, 07 Sep 2011 12:15:56 -0700
Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, 2011-09-07 at 18:38 +0100, Richard Hughes wrote:
On 7 September 2011 01:02, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com
wrote:
Is this a Bodhi bug? Or
Kevin Fenzi kevin at scrye.com writes:
* As a maintainer you should only be pushing an update you feel
works/fixes something anyhow. Shouldn't that be an implied +1 always
from the maintainer?
Well, there's actual testing, vs. being convinced based on the apparent
simplicity of a patch
I've mentioned before that I actually support this, but I'm in the
minority, and AFAIK the current policy is supposed to be that
maintainers cannot upkarma updates they submitted themselves. However,
this seems to be happening - exhibit a):
On Tue, Sep 06, 2011 at 05:02:25PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
I've mentioned before that I actually support this, but I'm in the
minority, and AFAIK the current policy is supposed to be that
maintainers cannot upkarma updates they submitted themselves. However,
this seems to be happening -
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 8:00 PM, Peter Hutterer peter.hutte...@who-t.net wrote:
On Tue, Sep 06, 2011 at 05:02:25PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
I've mentioned before that I actually support this, but I'm in the
minority, and AFAIK the current policy is supposed to be that
maintainers cannot
On Tue, Sep 06, 2011 at 08:09:03PM -0500, Richard Shaw wrote:
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 8:00 PM, Peter Hutterer peter.hutte...@who-t.net
wrote:
On Tue, Sep 06, 2011 at 05:02:25PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
I've mentioned before that I actually support this, but I'm in the
minority, and
On Wed, 2011-09-07 at 11:00 +1000, Peter Hutterer wrote:
On Tue, Sep 06, 2011 at 05:02:25PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
I've mentioned before that I actually support this, but I'm in the
minority, and AFAIK the current policy is supposed to be that
maintainers cannot upkarma updates they
On Tue, 06 Sep 2011 17:02:25 -0700
Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
I've mentioned before that I actually support this, but I'm in the
minority, and AFAIK the current policy is supposed to be that
maintainers cannot upkarma updates they submitted themselves. However,
this seems to
On Tue, Sep 06, 2011 at 07:38:53PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Wed, 2011-09-07 at 11:00 +1000, Peter Hutterer wrote:
On Tue, Sep 06, 2011 at 05:02:25PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
I've mentioned before that I actually support this, but I'm in the
minority, and AFAIK the current
44 matches
Mail list logo
