Re: Need proventester karma for firstboot-1.113-4.fc14 (was: Re: bodhi v0.7.9 deployed)
On Tue, 2010-10-05 at 00:14 +0200, drago01 wrote: > On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 12:09 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: > > On Sat, 2010-10-02 at 23:10 +0100, Camilo Mesias wrote: > >> I think the moral of this story is that the input to the process is > >> fallible. Shit always happens. > >> > >> Automated systems that filter or delay the 'happening' should be > >> backed up by statistics to show that they help... > >> > >> Otherwise, when they filter and delay attempts to fix problems by > >> people who are trying to help, they will just cause frustration. > > > > There's nothing automated about proventesters. > > Have you actually checked that all of them are in fact human? ;) Well, I did make sure none of the applicants was called Geoff Petersen...:) -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Need proventester karma for firstboot-1.113-4.fc14 (was: Re: bodhi v0.7.9 deployed)
On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 12:09 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Sat, 2010-10-02 at 23:10 +0100, Camilo Mesias wrote: >> I think the moral of this story is that the input to the process is >> fallible. Shit always happens. >> >> Automated systems that filter or delay the 'happening' should be >> backed up by statistics to show that they help... >> >> Otherwise, when they filter and delay attempts to fix problems by >> people who are trying to help, they will just cause frustration. > > There's nothing automated about proventesters. Have you actually checked that all of them are in fact human? ;) -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Need proventester karma for firstboot-1.113-4.fc14 (was: Re: bodhi v0.7.9 deployed)
On Sat, 2010-10-02 at 23:10 +0100, Camilo Mesias wrote: > I think the moral of this story is that the input to the process is > fallible. Shit always happens. > > Automated systems that filter or delay the 'happening' should be > backed up by statistics to show that they help... > > Otherwise, when they filter and delay attempts to fix problems by > people who are trying to help, they will just cause frustration. There's nothing automated about proventesters. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Need proventester karma for firstboot-1.113-4.fc14 (was: Re: bodhi v0.7.9 deployed)
I think the moral of this story is that the input to the process is fallible. Shit always happens. Automated systems that filter or delay the 'happening' should be backed up by statistics to show that they help... Otherwise, when they filter and delay attempts to fix problems by people who are trying to help, they will just cause frustration. -Cam On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 11:56 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote: > On Sat, Oct 02, 2010 at 12:45:14AM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote: >> Matthew Garrett wrote: >> > "Some packages were pushed to stable before they should have been, >> > therefore we need to make it easier to push packages to stable"? >> >> Yes! Sure, this sounds paradoxical, but my premise is that NO MATTER how >> strict you make the requirement for pushes to stable, there will ALWAYS be >> the possibility that "sh*t happens" and thus a need to be able to rush out >> fixes to stable as quickly as possible. > > And my premise is that we should be making harder for shit to happen, > and the cases where it *does* should be examined carefully to determine > the best way forwards. "Force this untested package into stable" isn't > the best way to do things. > > -- > Matthew Garrett | mj...@srcf.ucam.org > -- > devel mailing list > devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel > -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Need proventester karma for firstboot-1.113-4.fc14 (was: Re: bodhi v0.7.9 deployed)
On Sat, Oct 02, 2010 at 12:45:14AM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Matthew Garrett wrote: > > "Some packages were pushed to stable before they should have been, > > therefore we need to make it easier to push packages to stable"? > > Yes! Sure, this sounds paradoxical, but my premise is that NO MATTER how > strict you make the requirement for pushes to stable, there will ALWAYS be > the possibility that "sh*t happens" and thus a need to be able to rush out > fixes to stable as quickly as possible. And my premise is that we should be making harder for shit to happen, and the cases where it *does* should be examined carefully to determine the best way forwards. "Force this untested package into stable" isn't the best way to do things. -- Matthew Garrett | mj...@srcf.ucam.org -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Need proventester karma for firstboot-1.113-4.fc14 (was: Re: bodhi v0.7.9 deployed)
Matthew Garrett wrote: > "Some packages were pushed to stable before they should have been, > therefore we need to make it easier to push packages to stable"? Yes! Sure, this sounds paradoxical, but my premise is that NO MATTER how strict you make the requirement for pushes to stable, there will ALWAYS be the possibility that "sh*t happens" and thus a need to be able to rush out fixes to stable as quickly as possible. Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Need proventester karma for firstboot-1.113-4.fc14 (was: Re: bodhi v0.7.9 deployed)
James Laska wrote: > In retrospect, if the three updates you list were in fact > interdependent, should they have been submitted and tested as a group to > avoid the current situation? Yes, of course. But it's not my fault that cwickert filed those 2 updates without the required matching firstboot update. Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Need proventester karma for firstboot-1.113-4.fc14 (was: Re: bodhi v0.7.9 deployed)
James Laska wrote: > On Fri, 2010-10-01 at 12:36 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote: >> Adam Williamson wrote: >> > Again, you're extrapolating way too far from a single problem case. The >> > problem is simply that we have the xorg-x11-drivers metapackage which >> > requires every single X driver and is in the critpath. There's various >> > ways we could adjust this so it's no longer the case. It's hardly >> > something that renders an entire policy invalid. >> >> Another example for how the critical path policy breaks things: >> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/firstboot-1.113-4.fc14 >> This update adds support for xfwm4 and openbox to the firstboot code. >> Updates for those 2 window managers: >> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/xfwm4-4.6.2-2.fc14 >> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/openbox-3.4.11.2-4.fc14 ... >> I CANNOT push the firstboot update which UNBREAKS those 2 spins because >> of the update policy. So instead of preventing breakage, the policy >> CAUSES breakage! How can it fail more spectacularly for you to finally >> realize it's a failure? > In retrospect, if the three updates you list were in fact > interdependent, should they have been submitted and tested as a group to > avoid the current situation? Yes. -- Rex -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Need proventester karma for firstboot-1.113-4.fc14 (was: Re: bodhi v0.7.9 deployed)
On Fri, 01 Oct 2010 12:36:13 +0200 Kevin Kofler wrote: > Adam Williamson wrote: > > Again, you're extrapolating way too far from a single problem case. > > The problem is simply that we have the xorg-x11-drivers metapackage > > which requires every single X driver and is in the critpath. > > There's various ways we could adjust this so it's no longer the > > case. It's hardly something that renders an entire policy invalid. > > Another example for how the critical path policy breaks things: > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/firstboot-1.113-4.fc14 > This update adds support for xfwm4 and openbox to the firstboot code. > Updates for those 2 window managers: > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/xfwm4-4.6.2-2.fc14 > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/openbox-3.4.11.2-4.fc14 > which add the virtual firstboot(windowmanager) Provides have already > been pushed to stable! So now we have 2 WMs satisfying firstboot's > dependencies, but not actually supported by its code. The result: the > Xfce and LXDE spins will be outright BROKEN. (And it's not my fault, > I only did the firstboot build and update requests, the other 2 > packages were pushed by cwickert.) Xfce at least will not be. ;) I have not been able to do an install and test firstboot here yet, but I can over the weekend. The Xfce update does not much in the end though, so I don't think it's at all urgent. > I CANNOT push the firstboot update which UNBREAKS those 2 spins > because of the update policy. So instead of preventing breakage, the > policy CAUSES breakage! How can it fail more spectacularly for you to > finally realize it's a failure? Is there any way you could try to not be such a negative ball of energy? I suppose not. > To all proventesters: please +1 that update, EVEN IF YOU HAVEN'T > TESTED IT, we need to get out of this impasse! Please don't. Please test the updates properly and add karma when you have. kevin signature.asc Description: PGP signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Need proventester karma for firstboot-1.113-4.fc14 (was: Re: bodhi v0.7.9 deployed)
On Fri, 2010-10-01 at 12:36 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Adam Williamson wrote: > > Again, you're extrapolating way too far from a single problem case. The > > problem is simply that we have the xorg-x11-drivers metapackage which > > requires every single X driver and is in the critpath. There's various > > ways we could adjust this so it's no longer the case. It's hardly > > something that renders an entire policy invalid. > > Another example for how the critical path policy breaks things: > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/firstboot-1.113-4.fc14 > This update adds support for xfwm4 and openbox to the firstboot code. > Updates for those 2 window managers: > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/xfwm4-4.6.2-2.fc14 > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/openbox-3.4.11.2-4.fc14 > which add the virtual firstboot(windowmanager) Provides have already been > pushed to stable! So now we have 2 WMs satisfying firstboot's dependencies, > but not actually supported by its code. The result: the Xfce and LXDE spins > will be outright BROKEN. (And it's not my fault, I only did the firstboot > build and update requests, the other 2 packages were pushed by cwickert.) > > I CANNOT push the firstboot update which UNBREAKS those 2 spins because of > the update policy. So instead of preventing breakage, the policy CAUSES > breakage! How can it fail more spectacularly for you to finally realize it's > a failure? > > To all proventesters: please +1 that update, EVEN IF YOU HAVEN'T TESTED IT, > we need to get out of this impasse! This is a bad idea. I don't advocate supplying positive karma feedback without following basic test procedures to verify the update is sane. I understand that sometimes things are out of ones' control, but lowering quality standards to resolve this issue isn't a precedent I support. In retrospect, if the three updates you list were in fact interdependent, should they have been submitted and tested as a group to avoid the current situation? Thanks, James signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Need proventester karma for firstboot-1.113-4.fc14 (was: Re: bodhi v0.7.9 deployed)
On Fri, Oct 01, 2010 at 12:36:13PM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote: > I CANNOT push the firstboot update which UNBREAKS those 2 spins because of > the update policy. So instead of preventing breakage, the policy CAUSES > breakage! How can it fail more spectacularly for you to finally realize it's > a failure? "Some packages were pushed to stable before they should have been, therefore we need to make it easier to push packages to stable"? -- Matthew Garrett | mj...@srcf.ucam.org -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Need proventester karma for firstboot-1.113-4.fc14 (was: Re: bodhi v0.7.9 deployed)
Adam Williamson wrote: > Again, you're extrapolating way too far from a single problem case. The > problem is simply that we have the xorg-x11-drivers metapackage which > requires every single X driver and is in the critpath. There's various > ways we could adjust this so it's no longer the case. It's hardly > something that renders an entire policy invalid. Another example for how the critical path policy breaks things: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/firstboot-1.113-4.fc14 This update adds support for xfwm4 and openbox to the firstboot code. Updates for those 2 window managers: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/xfwm4-4.6.2-2.fc14 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/openbox-3.4.11.2-4.fc14 which add the virtual firstboot(windowmanager) Provides have already been pushed to stable! So now we have 2 WMs satisfying firstboot's dependencies, but not actually supported by its code. The result: the Xfce and LXDE spins will be outright BROKEN. (And it's not my fault, I only did the firstboot build and update requests, the other 2 packages were pushed by cwickert.) I CANNOT push the firstboot update which UNBREAKS those 2 spins because of the update policy. So instead of preventing breakage, the policy CAUSES breakage! How can it fail more spectacularly for you to finally realize it's a failure? To all proventesters: please +1 that update, EVEN IF YOU HAVEN'T TESTED IT, we need to get out of this impasse! Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
