On Wed, 2010-03-10 at 18:16 -0500, Al Dunsmuir wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 10, 2010, 5:59:20 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> >>On Wed, 2010-03-10 at 22:44 +, Ewan Mac Mahon wrote:
> >> The LHC is an interesting analogy; it certainly has problems that can be
> >> picked out with 20:20 hindsight, b
On Wednesday, March 10, 2010, 5:59:20 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
>>On Wed, 2010-03-10 at 22:44 +, Ewan Mac Mahon wrote:
>> The LHC is an interesting analogy; it certainly has problems that can be
>> picked out with 20:20 hindsight, but there was no way anyone could have
>> changed the processes
On Wed, 2010-03-10 at 22:44 +, Ewan Mac Mahon wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 01:21:45PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Wed, 2010-03-10 at 23:11 +0200, Gilboa Davara wrote:
> >
> > > Either we (package maintainers) are qualified to make sane decisions
> > > about our package or we are n
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 01:21:45PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-03-10 at 23:11 +0200, Gilboa Davara wrote:
>
> > Either we (package maintainers) are qualified to make sane decisions
> > about our package or we are not. I don't really see a middle ground
> > here.
>
> Being qualifi
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 9:11 PM, Gilboa Davara wrote:
>> If Fesco is aiming at getting rid of all the pesky packagers maintaining low
>> profile packages: You're well on your way.
>
> I usually stay away from mega-threads, but well put!
>
> I doubt that even major bug fixes in any of my (small) p
On Wed, 2010-03-10 at 13:21 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-03-10 at 23:11 +0200, Gilboa Davara wrote:
>
> > Either we (package maintainers) are qualified to make sane decisions
> > about our package or we are not. I don't really see a middle ground
> > here.
>
> Being qualified to d
On Wed, 2010-03-10 at 23:11 +0200, Gilboa Davara wrote:
> Either we (package maintainers) are qualified to make sane decisions
> about our package or we are not. I don't really see a middle ground
> here.
Being qualified to do something does not mean that one always does it
perfectly. Almost ever
On Mon, 2010-03-08 at 23:21 +0100, Sven Lankes wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 09:59:29PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>
> > Before being added to updates, the package must receive a net karma of
> > +3 in Bodhi.
>
> [...]
>
> > It is the expectation of Fesco that the majority of updates shoul
On Tue, 9 Mar 2010 10:04:22 +0100
Thomas Janssen wrote:
...snip...
> By the way, is there some
> documentation on how to vote out particular FESCo members and who can
> do it? Just in case one thinks that a particular member of FESCo is
> wrongly voted in. Or is that like with politicians, once
Ralf Corsepius writes:
> => All you're going to see is further bureaucracy and bureaucratic
> overhead, but you'r not going to see better package quality.
Precisely. Who knows the package best? The packagers. If so why there
is someone else to decide (karma, the system, whoever)? This is insane
Hello Krzysztof,
Tuesday, March 9, 2010, 3:36:43 PM, you wrote:
> Matthew Garrett writes:
>> 2) It is impossible to ensure that functionality will not be reduced
>> without sufficient testing.
> True.
The whole point of an update may be the deliberate removal of
features/functionalit
Matthew Garrett writes:
> 2) It is impossible to ensure that functionality will not be reduced
> without sufficient testing.
True.
> 3) Sufficient testing of software inherently requires manual
> intervention by more than one individual.
Definitely. IOW, the testing is never sufficient.
> 1)
On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 15:28 -0500, Al Dunsmuir wrote:
> > What Bill's talking about when he refers to 'autoqa tests' are generic
> > tests which are concerned with package quality, not really the software
> > in the package: stuff like do the dependencies work, are there any clear
> > errors in th
On Tuesday, March 9, 2010, 3:20:25 PM, Adam Willamson wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 15:13 -0500, Al Dunsmuir wrote:
>> > 1) All updates (even security) must pass AutoQA tests.
>> > Rationale: If a package breaks dependencies, does not install, or
>> > fails other obvious tests, it should not be
On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 15:13 -0500, Al Dunsmuir wrote:
> > 1) All updates (even security) must pass AutoQA tests.
> > Rationale: If a package breaks dependencies, does not install, or
> > fails other obvious tests, it should not be pushed. Period. Obviously,
> > this proposal would not be enacted u
On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 14:10 -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote:
>
>
> Proposal
>
> Comments, questions, reasoned arguments? Part of me wonders if this should be
> expanded with a sliding scale for update types (enhancements, for example, get
> more stringent treatment than bugfix/security
On Tuesday, March 9, 2010, 2:49:00 PM, Dan Horák wrote:
> Thanks Bill, this proposal is very similar to my "dump of ideas" posted
> earlier today. The only thing I would like to improve (probably in
> PackageKit) is the presentation of the content in updates-testing to the
> users, to make it more
On Tuesday, March 9, 2010, 2:10:04 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> However, I do wonder about some of the concerns about this being
> a requirement for all packages. So, here's a counter-proposal/expansion.
> If need be, each of these policies could be considered separately, although
> they do stack
Bill Nottingham píše v Út 09. 03. 2010 v 14:10 -0500:
> Matthew Garrett (mj...@srcf.ucam.org) said:
> > Introduction
> >
> >
> > We assume the following axioms:
> >
> > 1) Updates to stable that result in any reduction of functionality to
> > the user are unacceptable.
> >
> > 2)
On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 14:01 -0500, Luke Macken wrote:
> 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, n
On Tue, Mar 09, 2010 at 02:10:04PM -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> 2) Updates that constitute a part of the 'important' package set (defined
> below) must follow the rules as defined for critical path packages for
> pending releases, meaning that they require positive karma from releng
> and/or QA
On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 14:10 -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Proposal
>
>
> For a package to be pushed to the stable updates repository, it must
> meet the following criteria.
>
> 1) All updates (even security) must pass AutoQA tests.
>
> Rationale: If a package breaks dependencies, doe
On 03/09/2010 02:10 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Matthew Garrett (mj...@srcf.ucam.org) said:
>> Introduction
>>
>>
>> We assume the following axioms:
>>
>> 1) Updates to stable that result in any reduction of functionality to
>> the user are unacceptable.
>>
>> 2) It is impossible to
Matthew Garrett (mj...@srcf.ucam.org) said:
> Introduction
>
>
> We assume the following axioms:
>
> 1) Updates to stable that result in any reduction of functionality to
> the user are unacceptable.
>
> 2) It is impossible to ensure that functionality will not be reduced
> witho
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
On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 13:48 -0500, Jon Masters wrote:
>
> That is an acceptable fallback. But just for the record, I consider
> the
> critical path on my desktop to include not just
> kernel/udev/modules/etc.
> but also GNOME, cups, and other things I use each day. I don't
> personally care if KDE
On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 13:48 -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 to
On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 19:41 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> * Your proposal is doing much more than just banning pushing directly to
> stable (which by its own would already be annoying enough).
>
Actually his proposal would allow for pushing directly to stable,
provided the update ticket got enoug
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 pack
Luke Macken wrote:
> For example, the kernel maintainers disable karma automation entirely, and
> one could argue that this flexibility is important.
We also systematically disable karma automatism for KDE updates. We found
the numeric karma to be a very poor indicator of the quality of the updat
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 to go directly to stable.
That is an acceptable fallback. But jus
Matthew Garrett wrote:
> As I've said elsewhere, this is a problem that needs solving. But I
> don't believe that it's a problem that's best solved by allowing people
> to push directly to stable.
* What other solution do you propose?
* Your proposal is doing much more than just banning pushing di
On 03/09/2010 05:32 AM, Joe Orton wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 09, 2010 at 02:20:20PM +0100, Mathieu Bridon wrote:
>> If the issues this update was solbing really bothered them, they would
>> have provided feedback earlier.
>
> Hah, right. Back in the real world, most users expect free cake and
> compla
On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 00:18 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > It is the expectation of Fesco that the majority of updates should
> > easily be able to garner the necessary karma in a minimal space of time.
>
> You gotta be kidding! Just look at the current update landscape to see how
> far from the
Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Mar 2010 21:59:29 +, Matthew wrote:
>> It is the expectation of Fesco that the majority of updates should
>> easily be able to garner the necessary karma in a minimal space of time.
>
> Your wording or FESCo's?
Definitely not mine, I can assure you! To me,
Matthew Garrett wrote:
> What guards you against changes in the buildroot, non-deterministic
> compiler bugs, cosmic rays and the like? The point is to test the
> binaries that are being pushed into the hands of the users.
There's a point at which the probability of breakage is so low that it's a
Matthew Garrett wrote:
> The ability for maintainers to flag an update directly into the updates
> repository will be disabled. Before being added to updates, the package
> must receive a net karma of +3 in Bodhi.
Even if it already went to testing and sit there for ages? This will lead to
MANY u
On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 09:59:29PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> This is the policy that I expect to be discussed during the Fesco
> meeting tomorrow. This is entirely orthogonal to the ongoing discussions
> regarding whether updates in stable releases should be expected to
> provide features
On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 7:12 AM, Seth Vidal wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 9 Mar 2010, Karel Zak wrote:
>
>> It's not (only) about Linus. It's about working environment and
>> strong focus on technical things.
>>
>> Please, read:
>> http://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/ManagementStyle
>>
>>> Yes, we don't
On Tue, 9 Mar 2010, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 09, 2010 at 03:26:15PM +0100, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski
> wrote:
>
>> -1 to this. I've packaged a number of things that I know just one user of.
>> I have no idea how many people actually use my packages or how to reach
>> them. Ther
On Tue, Mar 09, 2010 at 03:26:15PM +0100, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
> -1 to this. I've packaged a number of things that I know just one user of.
> I have no idea how many people actually use my packages or how to reach
> them. Therefore it will most likely be impossible for me to get +
On Mon, 08.03.10 21:59, Matthew Garrett (mj...@srcf.ucam.org) wrote:
> The ability for maintainers to flag an update directly into the updates
> repository will be disabled. Before being added to updates, the package
> must receive a net karma of +3 in Bodhi.
Two questions:
How do you plan to
On Tue, Mar 09, 2010 at 09:52:28AM +0100, Dan Horák wrote:
> Matthew Garrett píše v Po 08. 03. 2010 v 21:59 +:
> > This is the policy that I expect to be discussed during the Fesco
> > meeting tomorrow. This is entirely orthogonal to the ongoing discussions
> > regarding whether updates in s
On Monday, 08 March 2010 at 22:59, Matthew Garrett wrote:
[...]
> Proposal
>
>
> The ability for maintainers to flag an update directly into the updates
> repository will be disabled. Before being added to updates, the package
> must receive a net karma of +3 in Bodhi.
-1 to this. I've
On Mon, 2010-03-08 at 21:59 +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> This is the policy that I expect to be discussed during the Fesco
> meeting tomorrow. This is entirely orthogonal to the ongoing discussions
> regarding whether updates in stable releases should be expected to
> provide features or pur
On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 11:41:44PM -0500, Jon Masters wrote:
>
> I believe that this is possibly too limited. Aside from the obvious
> abuse potential (which will always exist no matter what happens) -
> obviously someone could just hate the process and decide to have a
> couple of others sign off
On Tue, 9 Mar 2010 14:20:20 +0100, Mathieu wrote:
> I maintain some niche packages that almost no one uses/no one would
> provide karma for. But if I'm asked for a bugfix, and I do it, I want
> the people requesting it to tell me that it indeed fixes the issue and
> doesn't break anything else.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 03/08/2010 10:59 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> The ability for maintainers to flag an update directly into the updates
> repository will be disabled. Before being added to updates, the package
> must receive a net karma of +3 in Bodhi.
- -1, I wou
On Tue, 9 Mar 2010, Karel Zak wrote:
>
> Always when I see that someone is trying to introduce a new rule I
> have to ask myself ... why so large project like kernel is able to
> successfully exist for 20 years without a huge collection of rules?
the kernel has one rule which ends up working ve
On Tue, 9 Mar 2010, Karel Zak wrote:
> It's not (only) about Linus. It's about working environment and
> strong focus on technical things.
>
> Please, read:
> http://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/ManagementStyle
>
>> Yes, we don't have Linus here ;-) But usually I like his decisions - mostly
On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 06:00:20PM -0800, Chris Weyl wrote:
> Hmm. So. I have a package, perl-Moose, that has 4,667 tests run at
> build time. It depends on perl-Class-MOP, which has 2,225 tests, and
> it in turn depends on perl, which has 234,776 tests run at build. On
> a future note, we're
On Tue, Mar 09, 2010 at 02:10:58PM +0100, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
> On Tuesday 09 March 2010 13:55:53 Seth Vidal wrote:
> > On Tue, 9 Mar 2010, Karel Zak wrote:
> > > Always when I see that someone is trying to introduce a new rule I
> > > have to ask myself ... why so large project like kernel is a
On Tue, Mar 09, 2010 at 02:20:20PM +0100, Mathieu Bridon wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 10:51, Joe Orton wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 09:59:29PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >> It is the expectation of Fesco that the majority of updates should
> >> easily be able to garner the necessary
Sounds pretty sensible.
We should also keep in mind that one size does not fit all. While core
and widely used packages should have a more conservative update path,
some packages could benefit from faster release. karma mechanism +
feedback integration in PK looks like a total win for the latter.
On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 10:51, Joe Orton wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 09:59:29PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> It is the expectation of Fesco that the majority of updates should
>> easily be able to garner the necessary karma in a minimal space of time.
>
> This seems naive to me. My experi
On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 11:12:11PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 11:21:45PM +0100, Sven Lankes wrote:
> >
> > If Fesco is aiming at getting rid of all the pesky packagers maintaining low
> > profile packages: You're well on your way.
>
> So, no, that's not the intent and
On Tuesday 09 March 2010 13:55:53 Seth Vidal wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Mar 2010, Karel Zak wrote:
> > Always when I see that someone is trying to introduce a new rule I
> > have to ask myself ... why so large project like kernel is able to
> > successfully exist for 20 years without a huge collection of r
Dne 8.3.2010 22:59, Matthew Garrett napsal(a):
> The ability for maintainers to flag an update directly into the updates
> repository will be disabled. Before being added to updates, the package
> must receive a net karma of +3 in Bodhi.
I usually decrease required karma to +-1, but I have never e
On 03/09/2010 03:29 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> The ability for maintainers to flag an update directly into the updates
> repository will be disabled. Before being added to updates, the package
> must receive a net karma of +3 in Bodhi.
>
I don't see how we expect that for all packages to ge
On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 09:59:29PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> This is the policy that I expect to be discussed during the Fesco
> meeting tomorrow. This is entirely orthogonal to the ongoing discussions
> regarding whether updates in stable releases should be expected to
> provide features
On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 09:59:29PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> It is the expectation of Fesco that the majority of updates should
> easily be able to garner the necessary karma in a minimal space of time.
This seems naive to me. My experience is that there are few people
willing to provide
On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 09:28 +0100, Michal Schmidt wrote:
> On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 23:41:44 -0500 Jon Masters wrote:
> > I also suggest /considering/ implementing rolling updates rather than
> > pushing everything to stable. By rolling updates, in this case I mean
> > implementing a technical means (an
On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 00:53, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-03-08 at 18:45 -0500, Steven M. Parrish wrote:
>> As a maintainer I have seen several of my packages sit in updates testing for
>> over 2 weeks with no comments and no karma. In fact they sat so long I got
>> nag mail about not pus
On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 11:21 PM, Sven Lankes wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 09:59:29PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>
>> Before being added to updates, the package must receive a net karma of
>> +3 in Bodhi.
>
> [...]
>
>> It is the expectation of Fesco that the majority of updates should
>> ea
Matthew Garrett píše v Po 08. 03. 2010 v 21:59 +:
> This is the policy that I expect to be discussed during the Fesco
> meeting tomorrow. This is entirely orthogonal to the ongoing discussions
> regarding whether updates in stable releases should be expected to
> provide features or purely
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 03/09/2010 12:12 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> ...
> We need to work on making it easier for users to see that there are
> available testing updates and give feedback on them. This is clearly
> going to take a while
.. but should happen before the
On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 23:41:44 -0500 Jon Masters wrote:
> I also suggest /considering/ implementing rolling updates rather than
> pushing everything to stable. By rolling updates, in this case I mean
> implementing a technical means (and this is tricky with mirrors) by
> which not every user will rec
On 08/03/10 23:12, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 11:21:45PM +0100, Sven Lankes wrote:
>>
>> If Fesco is aiming at getting rid of all the pesky packagers maintaining low
>> profile packages: You're well on your way.
>
> So, no, that's not the intent and it's realised that this is
Hi Matthew,
Thank you to you, Josh, and others for putting effort into these
discussions. And thanks for bringing this up in the meeting tomorrow.
Some comments inline below that might be useful, or not.
Before I get into what you wrote, can I also suggest asking Fedora users
what they want? We a
On 03/09/2010 12:53 AM, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-03-08 at 18:45 -0500, Steven M. Parrish wrote:
>> As a maintainer I have seen several of my packages sit in updates testing for
>> over 2 weeks with no comments and no karma. In fact they sat so long I got
>> nag mail about not pushing th
On 03/08/2010 11:45 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Mar 2010 23:21:45 +0100, Sven wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 09:59:29PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>>
>>> Before being added to updates, the package must receive a net karma of
>>> +3 in Bodhi.
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> It is the expectat
On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 1:59 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> This is the policy that I expect to be discussed during the Fesco
> meeting tomorrow. This is entirely orthogonal to the ongoing discussions
> regarding whether updates in stable releases should be expected to
> provide features or purely bu
On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 07:55:03PM -0500, Martin Langhoff wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 7:39 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> > You're willing to say that if I update one of my packages that has a script
> > of 30 lines, is a leaf node, and the update is to give the script an
> > optional argument t
On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 7:39 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> You're willing to say that if I update one of my packages that has a script
> of 30 lines, is a leaf node, and the update is to give the script an
> optional argument to print output to stdout instead of writing to a file
> that I'm incapabl
On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 06:45:49PM -0500, Martin Langhoff wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 6:31 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> >> 3) Sufficient testing of software inherently requires manual
> >> intervention by more than one individual.
> >>
> > This isn't entirely true either.
>
> #3 is so true th
On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 06:28:45PM -0500, Martin Langhoff wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 4:59 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > The future
> > --
> >
> > Defining the purpose of Fedora updates is outside the scope of Fesco.
> > However, we note that updates intended to add new functionality
On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 09:59:29PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> We assume the following axioms:
>
> 1) Updates to stable that result in any reduction of functionality to
> the user are unacceptable.
>
> 2) It is impossible to ensure that functionality will not be reduced
> without sufficient
On Mon, 2010-03-08 at 18:45 -0500, Steven M. Parrish wrote:
> As a maintainer I have seen several of my packages sit in updates testing for
> over 2 weeks with no comments and no karma. In fact they sat so long I got
> nag mail about not pushing them. Requiring a karma of +3 to push is just not
On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 11:12:11PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 11:21:45PM +0100, Sven Lankes wrote:
> >
> > If Fesco is aiming at getting rid of all the pesky packagers maintaining low
> > profile packages: You're well on your way.
>
> So, no, that's not the intent and
On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 6:31 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
>> 3) Sufficient testing of software inherently requires manual
>> intervention by more than one individual.
>>
> This isn't entirely true either.
#3 is so true that is central to what distros are about. Upstream
probably released a good upda
On Monday 08 March 2010 05:32:01 pm Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> ...snip...
>
> Thanks for working on this Matthew!
>
> A small issue:
>
> - If the policy states +3 is needed, does that mean we are locking all
> updates to require this amount, no more no less? This could be bad
> for packages where
On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 09:59:29PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> This is the policy that I expect to be discussed during the Fesco
> meeting tomorrow. This is entirely orthogonal to the ongoing discussions
> regarding whether updates in stable releases should be expected to
> provide features
On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 4:59 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> The future
> --
>
> Defining the purpose of Fedora updates is outside the scope of Fesco.
> However, we note that updates intended to add new functionality are more
> likely to result in user-visible regressions, and updates that alt
On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 11:12:11PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> If Fesco is aiming at getting rid of all the pesky packagers maintaining low
>> profile packages: You're well on your way.
> So, no, that's not the intent and it's realised that this is a problem.
> We need to work on making it
Matthew Garrett wrote:
> We need to work on making it easier for users to see that there are
> available testing updates and give feedback on them. This is clearly
> going to take a while, and there'd undoubtedly going to be some
> difficulty in getting updates for more niche packages through as a
On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 11:27:04PM +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Mar 2010 21:59:29 +, Matthew wrote:
> > 1) Updates to stable that result in any reduction of functionality to
> > the user are unacceptable.
>
> Unless the fixes contained within an update are _more important_ than
On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 11:21:45PM +0100, Sven Lankes wrote:
>
> If Fesco is aiming at getting rid of all the pesky packagers maintaining low
> profile packages: You're well on your way.
So, no, that's not the intent and it's realised that this is a problem.
We need to work on making it easier f
On Mon, 2010-03-08 at 23:45 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> Also important, Matthew even fills a FESCo seat. Proposals like that are not
> what I expect from FESCo members. I'm severely disappointing.
Just to even things out: I am very happy with this proposal, and it is
exactly what I expect fr
On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 11:18:17PM +0100, Björn Persson wrote:
> Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > Proposal
> >
> >
> > The ability for maintainers to flag an update directly into the updates
> > repository will be disabled. Before being added to updates, the package
> > must receive a net karma
On Mon, 8 Mar 2010 23:45:57 +0100, I wrote:
> Also important, Matthew even fills a FESCo seat. Proposals like that are not
> what I expect from FESCo members. I'm severely disappointing.
s/disappointing/disappointed/
Only demonstrates that I would prefer to stay away from such crap. Perhaps it's
On Mon, 8 Mar 2010 23:21:45 +0100, Sven wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 09:59:29PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>
> > Before being added to updates, the package must receive a net karma of
> > +3 in Bodhi.
>
> [...]
>
> > It is the expectation of Fesco that the majority of updates should
> >
On Mon, 2010-03-08 at 17:32 -0500, Al Dunsmuir wrote:
> -1. Nay. NoWay. No thanks. Uh uh.
>
> I could find little or nothing in your proposal to which I agreed... so
> decided not to quote any.
>
> I just registered at Fedoraforums.org and voted "adventurous" in
> Adam's poll. Jus
-1. Nay. NoWay. No thanks. Uh uh.
I could find little or nothing in your proposal to which I agreed... so
decided not to quote any.
I just registered at Fedoraforums.org and voted "adventurous" in
Adam's poll. Just to make sure my voice is heard, and not the
shouting of f
...snip...
Thanks for working on this Matthew!
A small issue:
- If the policy states +3 is needed, does that mean we are locking all
updates to require this amount, no more no less? This could be bad
for packages where the maintainer might want more testing. Perhaps it
should be 'no less
On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 05:23:34PM -0500, David Malcolm wrote:
[...]
> Hope this is helpful; FWIW I think we need better automated testing
> around our updates process.
OK OK, it was half a joke. I agree that automated testing is the way
forward here. Hopefully AutoQA will help here. And we sho
On Mon, 2010-03-08 at 23:21 +0100, Sven Lankes wrote:
> > It is the expectation of Fesco that the majority of updates should
> > easily be able to garner the necessary karma in a minimal space of time.
>
> I don't know what to say.
>
> If Fesco is aiming at getting rid of all the pesky package
On Mon, 8 Mar 2010 21:59:29 +, Matthew wrote:
> This is the policy that I expect to be discussed during the Fesco
> meeting tomorrow. This is entirely orthogonal to the ongoing discussions
> regarding whether updates in stable releases should be expected to
> provide features or purely bugf
W dniu 08.03.2010 22:59, Matthew Garrett pisze:
> This is the policy that I expect to be discussed during the Fesco
> meeting tomorrow. This is entirely orthogonal to the ongoing discussions
> regarding whether updates in stable releases should be expected to
> provide features or purely bugfixe
On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 09:59:29PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Before being added to updates, the package must receive a net karma of
> +3 in Bodhi.
[...]
> It is the expectation of Fesco that the majority of updates should
> easily be able to garner the necessary karma in a minimal space o
On Mon, 2010-03-08 at 22:09 +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 09:59:29PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > We assume the following axioms:
> [..]
> > 2) It is impossible to ensure that functionality will not be reduced
> > without sufficient testing.
>
> Your axioms are o
1 - 100 of 107 matches
Mail list logo
