New bodhi bugfix release in production

bodhi v0.8.3 Yesterday I pushed out a new bugfix release of bodhi into production. The bodhi-client is currently on it's way to updates-testing for all releases. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates I raced to get this out before the infrastructure freeze today, and since

Re: New bodhi bugfix release in production

On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 02:59:51PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: On Tue, 2011-10-25 at 17:18 -0400, Luke Macken wrote: bodhi v0.8.3 Yesterday I pushed out a new bugfix release of bodhi into production. The bodhi-client is currently on it's way to updates-testing for all

Re: New bodhi bugfix release in production

On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 03:04:12PM -0700, Garrett Holmstrom wrote: On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 12:07 PM, Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com wrote: Or perhaps even: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA--N/package1-1.1.fc16,package2-1.1.fc16 where anything after the

Re: New bodhi bugfix release in production

On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 07:17:10PM -0400, Luke Macken wrote: On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 03:04:12PM -0700, Garrett Holmstrom wrote: On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 12:07 PM, Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com wrote: Or perhaps even: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA--N/package1-1.1

Bodhi 0.8.4 in production

Hi! A new bugfix release of bodhi has just hit production. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates Changes --- - A new URL structure implemented, based on discussions from fedora devel list[0]. Testing stable updates will now have the following URLs: /updates/unique

Re: New bodhi release in production

On 08/12/2010 07:12 PM, Orcan Ogetbil wrote: On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 5:57 PM, Luke Macken wrote: - Minimum time-in-testing requirements - Every day bodhi will look for updates that have been in testing for N days (fedora: N=7, epel: N=14

Re: New bodhi release in production

On 08/12/2010 07:15 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote: Orcan Ogetbil wrote: Now without any further testing the package can be pushed to stable, which contradicts the purpose of this whole change in bodhi. Sssh, why can't you keep quiet about this?! I think, for packages that are modified during the

Re: New bodhi release in production

On 08/13/2010 07:20 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote: On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 17:57:28 -0400, Luke wrote: A new version of bodhi has just hit production. This release contains a number of bugfixes and improvements, along with some important process changes. - Minimum time-in-testing

Re: New bodhi release in production

On 08/13/2010 11:29 AM, Till Maas wrote: On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 01:27:18AM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote: fix breaks that. Plus, edits can also be only to the description or bug references, Bodhi doesn't allow me to edit those without editing the whole update. Bodhi also allows you to edit the

Re: New bodhi release in production

On 08/13/2010 01:57 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: On 08/13/2010 01:23 AM, Luke Macken wrote: On 08/12/2010 07:12 PM, Orcan Ogetbil wrote: On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 5:57 PM, Luke Macken wrote: - Minimum time-in-testing requirements - Every day bodhi will look for updates

Re: New bodhi release in production

On 08/12/2010 07:47 PM, Orcan Ogetbil wrote: On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 5:57 PM, Luke Macken wrote: - Minimum time-in-testing requirements - When someone tries to push an update to stable, bodhi will look to see if it has the appropriate karma, or if it has

Re: New bodhi release in production

On 08/13/2010 10:16 AM, Till Maas wrote: On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 05:57:28PM -0400, Luke Macken wrote: - Show 7 days worth of entries in our RSS feeds, as opposed to 20 entries (https://fedorahosted.org/bodhi/ticket/339) This is nice, I forgot to add myself to the CC list, so I did

Re: New bodhi release in production

On 08/14/2010 07:17 AM, Till Maas wrote: On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 07:07:44PM -0400, Luke Macken wrote: I just pushed out a fix that should allow you to edit updates with your local development instance. Thank you very much, it works. Patches for the autokarma javascript will soon be attached

bodhi v0.7.9 deployed

A new version of bodhi has just hit production. This release contains a number of bugfixes and enhancements. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates Web UI Changes == - Improved editing functionality - Only unpush edited updates when builds are altered - Make a note in

Re: bodhi v0.7.9 deployed

On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 10:10:16AM +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote: On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 14:19:06 -0400 (EDT), Luke wrote: A new version of bodhi has just hit production. This release contains a number of bugfixes and enhancements. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates -

bodhi 0.9.3 deployed to production

message headers (Till Maas) - Publish messages upon buildroot override tag/untag (Ralph Bean) - Don't trigger fedmsg notifications for internal bodhi or autoqa comments Full list of changes Luke Macken (25): Sync up our specfic with rawhides Fix an out

Re: bodhi 0.9.3 deployed to production

On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 05:52:23AM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: Luke Macken wrote: A new bugfix release of Bodhi has just been deployed to production. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates Bugs and enhancement requests can be filed here: http://bodhi.fedorahosted.org

Re: bugz.fedoraproject.org trouble

On Fri, Dec 07, 2012 at 11:52:40PM +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote: On Fri, 7 Dec 2012 11:46:49 -0500, Ralph Bean wrote: http://bugz.fedoraproject.org/SOURCE-RPM-NAME e.g. http://bugz.fedoraproject.org/gnome-packagekit I introduced the switch-over as per this ticket

Re: Bodhi hash collision?

On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 03:57:58PM -0500, Josh Kayse wrote: On 02/18/2010 02:35 PM, Jonathan Underwood wrote: Hi, I just logged into the bodhi web interface and clicked on my updates. In the list I see a recent package I pushed to testing - shorewall-4.4.6-2.fc12. When I click on it, it

Re: Bodhi hash collision?

On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 01:42:29AM +0100, Christian Krause wrote: Hi Luke, On 02/18/2010 10:08 PM, Luke Macken wrote: On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 03:57:58PM -0500, Josh Kayse wrote: On 02/18/2010 02:35 PM, Jonathan Underwood wrote: Hi, I just logged into the bodhi web interface

Re: Bodhi hash collision?

On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 11:40:42PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: Luke Macken lmac...@redhat.com writes: A large number of updates currently suffer from duplicate IDs, and I need to figure out a clever way to fix it. Would it be prudent to not push new updates until you've fixed it? The duplicate

Re: Bodhi hash collision?

On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 09:29:51PM -0500, Jon Masters wrote: On Sun, 2010-02-21 at 15:36 -0500, Luke Macken wrote: On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 11:40:42PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: Luke Macken lmac...@redhat.com writes: A large number of updates currently suffer from duplicate IDs, and I

Re: Proposed udpates policy change

On Tue, Mar 09, 2010 at 01:48:42PM -0500, Jon Masters wrote: On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 12:26 -0500, Luke Macken wrote: I think a much better solution would be to require similar critical path policies, across *all* releases, not just pending ones, while still allowing non-critpath packages

Re: Bodhi error?

On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 06:47:44PM +0200, Ville Skyttä wrote: On Friday 19 March 2010, Jon Ciesla wrote: ServerError(https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/barrage/Fedora/ 13, 500, Unknown HTTP Server Response) This is while creating an update. I got that earlier today too,

Re: Pkgdb update and infrastructure freeze

On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 01:54:10PM -0400, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: Things that are known: * maxamillion's firefox search plugin currently doesn't work. We're looking at changing pkgdb search parameters so that it can work again. * some non-pkgdb code is broken by the update. These should

Re: About F19 Firewall

On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 10:15:33AM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: And, the python stack is a meaningfully-large portion of the minimal install. Right now, that's unavoidable because of yum, but in the not-so-far future dnf may make it possible to remove that. If we're putting in _more_

Re: How long do 0-karma packages stay in testing (in F20) now?

On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 11:10:19AM +0100, Paul Howarth wrote: On 13/10/13 22:43, Kevin Fenzi wrote: On Sun, 13 Oct 2013 22:35:08 +0100 Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com wrote: Ah, easy when you know where! So it looks like 3 days, although some have spent a bit longer, eg:

Re: The new Update Acceptance Criteria are broken

On Mon, Nov 01, 2010 at 09:35:49AM -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote: On Sun, 31 Oct 2010 10:16:41 -0400 Clyde E. Kunkel clydekunkel7...@cox.net wrote: On 10/31/2010 03:18 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote: Okay, feedback time. Lately, there have been several attempts at urging proventesters

Re: The new Update Acceptance Criteria are broken

On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 11:46:36AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: On Fri, 2010-11-12 at 14:32 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: It's absolutely crystal clear to me that we don't have enough tester manpower to make the current policy workable; it's past time to stop denying that. I'd suggest

Re: old_testing_critpath notifications

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

Re: old_testing_critpath notifications

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

Re: old_testing_critpath notifications

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

bodhi v0.7.10 production update

I just pushed a new release of bodhi into production. http://bodhi.fedoraproject.org It's a minor release that contains a small number of fixes, including: Backend bug fixes - Don't try and remove the -pending koji tags when resuming a push - Don't fetch security bug

Re: AutoQA Comments in Bodhi

On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 03:00:52PM -0600, Tim Flink wrote: [...] Two bugs were found in Bodhi's tag handling logic and we're hoping for fixes in the next day or so. Once those fixes are in and we've verified that the tests are pulling in packages correctly, we'll re-enable AutoQA's Bodhi

Re: json error from bodhi update

Excerpts from Neal Becker's message of Fri May 20 07:40:41 -0400 2011: 3083146 build (dist-f14-updates-candidate, /uncrustify:6a8dd0eea2183240177154f27c10a730f20994eb) completed successfully Creating a new update for uncrustify-0.58-1.fc14

Bodhi v0.8 in production

https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates Frontend Web/Client Changes --- * Buildroot Override Management http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Bodhi/BuildRootOverrides * Make update notes mandatory (fesco#457) * Gracefully handle invalid update template values

Re: Bodhi v0.8 in production

Excerpts from Stephen Gallagher's message of Mon Jun 13 13:02:29 -0400 2011: This is a great feature. Is there a guide somewhere on how to use it? If not, can you point me at the relevant upstream documentation and I'll write up an SOP for doing this. This is the closest thing to a guide

Re: Guide to setting karma thresholds?

Excerpts from Kevin Fenzi's message of Mon Jun 13 12:49:43 -0400 2011: On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 10:43:42 -0500 Michael Ekstrand mich...@elehack.net wrote: I'm working on pushing my first bugfix to F15 (#711261), using the guides I found in the wiki[1][2]. For a non-critical-path package, the

New bodhi release in production

Kalpa Welivitigoda (1): fixed input box alignment issue in login box #579 Luke Macken (25): Convert our tags_url to a byte string before passing it to urlgrabber. Add a script to detect when older builds become the 'latest' in stable Update our test

Re: Bodhi issues

On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 03:13:20PM -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote: On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 12:29:52 -0600, Orion Poplawski or...@cora.nwra.com wrote: On 08/13/2012 11:51 AM, Luke Macken wrote: This issue should be resolved. Can you try again? I posted a karma comment recently without

Bodhi critical path updates policy adjustment

FESCo recently made an adjustment to the updates policy to no longer require proventester karma for a critical path update to be deemed as stable. Critical path updates will now require just one regular +1 karma vote during the pre-beta phase and two regular +1 karma votes in other phases to be

bodhi statistics

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 shortcomings in our testing, however, it does

Re: bodhi statistics

On Tue, 2010-06-08 at 16:51 -0400, Luke Macken wrote: Fedora 13 * 231 updates automatically pushed due to karma (6.49

Re: bodhi statistics

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

Re: bodhi statistics

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

Re: bodhi statistics

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

Re: bodhi statistics

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

Re: Evolution update in F13

On Fri, 2010-06-25 at 22:50 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: I talked to notting c about this earlier, and we've hit this situation before. The 'scenario' is simply that there's really no screening between 'submit' and 'push' for stable updates, and this one was submitted to stable before any

Bodhi 0.7.5 release

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 Critical path package[0] updates now require positive karma from two

Re: Bodhi 0.7.5 release

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. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/critpath?release

Re: Bodhi 0.7.5 release

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

Re: Bodhi 0.7.5 release

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

Re: Bodhi 0.7.5 release

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

Re: measuring success

On 07/03/2010 06:50 AM, Till Maas wrote: Also Bodhi does not allow to fix updates by other people than the update submitter afaik. Anyone with commit privs to the rawhide branch of a package should be able to submit/edit updates for that package. Yes, it's not ideal, but that is how it is

Re: depcheck test (was Re: measuring success)

On 07/06/2010 04:09 PM, Till Maas wrote: On Tue, Jul 06, 2010 at 03:06:37PM -0400, Will Woods wrote: On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 19:21 +0200, Till Maas wrote: On Tue, Jul 06, 2010 at 09:40:01AM -0700, Jesse Keating wrote: On 7/6/10 8:52 AM, Till Maas wrote: IMHO it should not be a +1 karma but some

Re: Bodhi 0.7.5 release

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?

Re: Releasing ownership of packages

On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 11:08:04AM -0500, Karel Klic wrote: notmuch -- system for indexing, searching, and tagging email I'll take this one. luke -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: Build control-center in mock fail

On Wed, May 08, 2013 at 08:43:11AM +0400, Igor Gnatenko wrote: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/control-center-3.8.1.5-1.fc19?_csrf_token=348752c9889bf273010d694694059fece3649eae I need bugfix of https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=955257 In stable source FC19 with small patch I

Re: SELinux RPM scriplet issue annoucement

things at top priority. :) I know Luke Macken is actually actively working it. I know he is. He's been actively working on it for the said three-four year period. Every FUDCon/Flock he tells me it's nearly done. ;) Not ragging Luke, but it rather seems like we need about six more

Re: Heads up; F22 will require applications to ship appdata to be listed in software center

On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 02:11:31PM -0500, Matthew Miller wrote: On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 12:09:25PM +, Richard Hughes wrote: As the subject suggests, Fedora 22 will require applications to have a long description to be shown in the software center. We're introducing this change so that

bodhi 0.9.9 deployed

(Mathieu Bridon) https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1238 https://fedorahosted.org/bodhi/ticket/388 * Disable karma automatism upon AutoQA test failures (Luke Macken) https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1242 https://github.com/fedora-infra/bodhi/issues/36 * Do not trigger

Re: Bodhi policy for pushing updates to stable

On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 10:19:19AM +0100, Tomas Hozza wrote: Hi all. When upgrading F20 to F21 using FedUp, some users had a problem with some packages not being upgraded (e.g. [1]). The problem was caused by broken update path F20 - F21. For example in wget's case I pushed updates for

Re: \n in taskotron's depcheck messages

On Wed, Jan 07, 2015 at 07:58:49AM -0700, Dave Johansen wrote: On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 4:12 PM, Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com wrote: On Tue, 6 Jan 2015 16:04:07 -0700 Dave Johansen davejohan...@gmail.com wrote: I'm not sure if this is the right place to post this, but there are

Re: bodhi: Notified can be pushed, but refuses to push

On Sun, Mar 01, 2015 at 11:33:35AM +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote: On 03/01/2015 10:20 AM, Samuel Sieb wrote: On 02/28/2015 10:42 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: I receive a yellow box telling me: This update has not yet met the minimum testing requirements defined in the Package Update Acceptance

Re: bodhi - new update obsoleted an older update that had been submitted for stable

On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 07:17:10AM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: > On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 5:55 AM, Richard Fearn wrote: > > Hi, > > > >> https://github.com/fedora-infra/bodhi/issues/763 > > > > You beat me to it :) Thanks for doing that! > > > > And Luke seems to have fixed

Bodhi critical path updates policy adjustment

FESCo recently made an adjustment to the updates policy to no longer require proventester karma for a critical path update to be deemed as stable. Critical path updates will now require just one regular +1 karma vote during the pre-beta phase and two regular +1 karma votes in other phases to be

New bodhi release in production

Kalpa Welivitigoda (1): fixed input box alignment issue in login box #579 Luke Macken (25): Convert our tags_url to a byte string before passing it to urlgrabber. Add a script to detect when older builds become the 'latest' in stable Update our test

bodhi 0.9.3 deployed to production

message headers (Till Maas) - Publish messages upon buildroot override tag/untag (Ralph Bean) - Don't trigger fedmsg notifications for internal bodhi or autoqa comments Full list of changes Luke Macken (25): Sync up our specfic with rawhides Fix an out