On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 18:15:29 +0100,
Till Maas opensou...@till.name wrote:
You can very easy report that you have installed some update, used it
and it did not break. This is afaik enough to justify +1 karma.
I thought you needed to do a bit more than just install a package to
give a +1.
On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 05:36:58AM -0600, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 18:15:29 +0100,
Till Maas opensou...@till.name wrote:
You can very easy report that you have installed some update, used it
and it did not break. This is afaik enough to justify +1 karma.
I
On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 13:38:36 +0100,
Till Maas opensou...@till.name wrote:
I wrote to give +1 after using it and your original problem was, that
you did not notice when something works. So if you updated firefox
yesterday and used it to browse the world wide web without problems and
run
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 05:51:06AM +0100, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
Mike Fedyk píše v Po 22. 11. 2010 v 18:03 -0800:
Also security updates should not have any other changes mixed in.
In the early days of Fedora, it was explicitly decided that (contra
Debian) maintainers are not required to
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 08:31:15AM +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 11/23/2010 06:51 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
IMO, the real problem is not backports vs. upgrading to fix bugs,
it's bugs not getting fixed in Fedora, for a variety of reasons.
Therefore, I consider trying to apply any
On 11/24/2010 12:22 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 08:31:15AM +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 11/23/2010 06:51 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
IMO, the real problem is not backports vs. upgrading to fix bugs,
it's bugs not getting fixed in Fedora, for a variety of reasons.
On Wed, 2010-11-24 at 13:07 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
Also, it's this kind of situations, where Fedora's QA's delays have
shown to be counter-productive.
To be clear, they are not QA's delays. The initial proposal to FESCo was
by mjg, the revised proposal was by notting, and it was FESCo
On 11/23/2010 06:51 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
IMO, the real problem is not backports vs. upgrading to fix bugs,
it's bugs not getting fixed in Fedora, for a variety of reasons.
Therefore, I consider trying to apply any such simple policy to be
impossible and naive.
Agreeable logical
On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 11:39:14PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Let people use their brains. If they screw up, yell at them, and work on
informing people in a better way so such mistakes don't happen again.
Everyone makes mistakes. The idea is to provide an opportunity for
people's mistakes to
On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 09:59:42PM -0600, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 10:35:31 +0100,
Till Maas opensou...@till.name wrote:
IMHO it is pretty unlikely that people use updates-testing but do not
care about posting feedback to Bodhi.
I usually notice only when
On 11/20/2010 06:02 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
That's not what I'm talking about. There have been multiple instances
where updates have been pushed that were *completely broken*: they could
not work at all, in any fashion, for anyone. It doesn't happen a lot,
but it happens; enough to prove
On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 02:09:47PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
I do. I don't believe all maintainers do. It's pretty hard to explain
why updates that completely prevent the app in question from working, or
Btw. this is not a problem that might happen with updates, but also
happens with
On Mon, 2010-11-22 at 19:29 +0100, Till Maas wrote:
On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 02:09:47PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
I do. I don't believe all maintainers do. It's pretty hard to explain
why updates that completely prevent the app in question from working, or
Btw. this is not a problem
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 10:43:21AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Mon, 2010-11-22 at 19:29 +0100, Till Maas wrote:
On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 02:09:47PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
I do. I don't believe all maintainers do. It's pretty hard to explain
why updates that completely
On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 6:16 PM, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote:
But one of the main points of this subthread is that that waiting period is
way too long for some urgent fixes (security fixes, regression fixes etc.).
If it's really a regression, then you will have interested users
Mike Fedyk píše v Po 22. 11. 2010 v 18:03 -0800:
Also security updates should not have any other changes mixed in.
In the early days of Fedora, it was explicitly decided that (contra
Debian) maintainers are not required to backport patches and that
rebases (fixing a bug by updating to a new
On 11/23/2010 05:51 AM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
Mike Fedyk píše v Po 22. 11. 2010 v 18:03 -0800:
Also security updates should not have any other changes mixed in.
In the early days of Fedora, it was explicitly decided that (contra
Debian) maintainers are not required to backport patches and that
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 11:42:19AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
it's worth noting that part of the point of the 7-day clause is to cover
'invisible testing'; even if people aren't posting feedback to Bodhi,
it's likely that if the update actually is broken, we will find out one
way or
On Sun, 2010-11-21 at 12:42 -0500, David Nalley wrote:
I am curious to know a few things?
How many updates submitted to bodhi since the policy has been in place?
How many updates received any feedback?
How many updates received only neutral or negative feedback?
How many updates had an
On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 5:09 PM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
On Sat, 2010-11-20 at 14:49 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Fri, 19 Nov 2010 22:04:24 -0800
Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
...snip...
https://fedorahosted.org/bodhi/ticket/277
hum, that wasn't well
David Nalley wrote:
I think this is an interesting idea, but I'll also say I think it can
be made simpler. Why not just hold package maintainers accountable
period. Make them accountable to FESCo (which in theory they are to
begin with) If I, as a package maintainer continuously want to 'push
On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 10:35:31 +0100,
Till Maas opensou...@till.name wrote:
IMHO it is pretty unlikely that people use updates-testing but do not
care about posting feedback to Bodhi.
I usually notice only when something breaks, not when it keeps working.
--
devel mailing list
On Sat, 2010-11-20 at 14:49 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Fri, 19 Nov 2010 22:04:24 -0800
Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
...snip...
https://fedorahosted.org/bodhi/ticket/277
hum, that wasn't well publicised, and I wasn't aware of it. (I should
probably show up to more
Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com writes:
I do. I don't believe all maintainers do. It's pretty hard to explain
why updates that completely prevent the app in question from working, or
even prevent the system from booting, got pushed in the past, if all
maintainers actually test their
On Sat, 2010-11-20 at 17:45 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com writes:
I do. I don't believe all maintainers do. It's pretty hard to explain
why updates that completely prevent the app in question from working, or
even prevent the system from booting, got pushed in
On Sat, 2010-11-20 at 17:45 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
I don't by any means disagree with the idea that testing packages before
they go out is a good thing. What I have a problem with is the idea
that an unfunded mandate for that to happen is going to accomplish
much. A policy isn't worth the
Adam Williamson wrote:
Please remember the exact policy we have. There is still no absolute
requirement for testing for anything but critpath packages, which is a
fairly small number. All other packages can push updates without
testing; there's simply a short waiting period to do so.
But one
On Sun, 2010-11-21 at 03:16 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Adam Williamson wrote:
Please remember the exact policy we have. There is still no absolute
requirement for testing for anything but critpath packages, which is a
fairly small number. All other packages can push updates without
On Tue, 2010-11-16 at 17:22 -0500, Luke Macken wrote:
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;
On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 08:03:35AM -0600, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 13:59:24 +0100,
Till Maas opensou...@till.name wrote:
The optimal case is to provide well tested security updates fast, but
this is not what Fedora achieves. In my example there is no indication
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
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
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 9:14 PM, Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com wrote:
On Fri, 12 Nov 2010 14:54:28 -0500
Simo Sorce sso...@redhat.com wrote:
Adam why should security updates wait at all ?
Do you fear some packager will flag as security updates that are not ?
Surely we can deal with such
On Tue, 2010-11-16 at 23:35 +0100, François Cami wrote:
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 9:14 PM, Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com wrote:
On Fri, 12 Nov 2010 14:54:28 -0500
Simo Sorce sso...@redhat.com wrote:
Adam why should security updates wait at all ?
Do you fear some packager will flag as
* Jon Masters (jonat...@jonmasters.org) wrote:
On Tue, 2010-11-16 at 23:35 +0100, François Cami wrote:
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 9:14 PM, Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com wrote:
On Fri, 12 Nov 2010 14:54:28 -0500
Simo Sorce sso...@redhat.com wrote:
Adam why should security updates wait at
On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 02:22:42PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 10:21:30AM +0100, Till Maas wrote:
The documented issues do not seem to be as bad as a system being
exploited. It is only about dependency breakage or services not working
anymore. There is no major
On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 13:59:24 +0100,
Till Maas opensou...@till.name wrote:
If there are no security updates, people can not apply them. So what is
worse? If people stop applying updates, then it is at least their
decision. If there are no updates, people can only choose not to use
Many
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 01:14:12PM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
No. The issue is that in the past sometimes security updates have been
rushed out with no testing and broken things badly. ;(
See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Updates_Lessons
For some small number of examples (yes, anyone is
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 11:19:22AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
Thanks for flagging this up.
I'm wondering if perhaps we should devise a system - maybe a sub-group
of proventesters - to ensure timely testing of security updates. wdyt?
I am not sure if a smaller group would help here. But
On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 10:21:30AM +0100, Till Maas wrote:
The documented issues do not seem to be as bad as a system being
exploited. It is only about dependency breakage or services not working
anymore. There is no major data corruption requiring access to backups
and restoring the whole
On 11/12/2010 11:14 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Clyde E. Kunkelclydekunkel7...@cox.net writes:
snip
The major packages that I work with have regression test suites,
which in fact get run as part of the RPM build sequence. It's not
apparent to me that I should need to invent some more tests.
I
On Sat, 2010-11-13 at 14:22 +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 10:21:30AM +0100, Till Maas wrote:
The documented issues do not seem to be as bad as a system being
exploited. It is only about dependency breakage or services not working
anymore. There is no major data
On Mon, Nov 01, 2010 at 10:09:17AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
I disagree. The evidence you cite does not support this conclusion. We
implemented the policies for three releases. There are significant
problems with one release. This does not justify the conclusion that the
policies should
On Fri, 2010-11-12 at 20:03 +0100, Till Maas wrote:
On Mon, Nov 01, 2010 at 10:09:17AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
I disagree. The evidence you cite does not support this conclusion. We
implemented the policies for three releases. There are significant
problems with one release. This
On Fri, 2010-11-12 at 14:32 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Till Maas opensou...@till.name writes:
On Mon, Nov 01, 2010 at 10:09:17AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
I disagree. The evidence you cite does not support this conclusion. We
implemented the policies for three releases. There are
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 narrowing the policy to a small number of
critical packages, for which there
On Fri, 12 Nov 2010 11:19:22 -0800
Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
On Fri, 2010-11-12 at 20:03 +0100, Till Maas wrote:
On Mon, Nov 01, 2010 at 10:09:17AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
I disagree. The evidence you cite does not support this
conclusion. We implemented the
On Fri, 2010-11-12 at 14:54 -0500, Simo Sorce wrote:
Adam why should security updates wait at all ?
Do you fear some packager will flag as security updates that are not ?
Surely we can deal with such maintainer if that happens...
I don't have a hugely strong opinion either way, but the stated
On 11/12/2010 02:32 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Till Maasopensou...@till.name writes:
snip
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 narrowing the policy to a small number of
Clyde E. Kunkel clydekunkel7...@cox.net writes:
On 11/12/2010 02:32 PM, 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 narrowing the policy to a small number of
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
(and not just testers in general) to give positive karma for aging
On Mon, 2010-11-01 at 02:18 +0100, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
Kevin, could you *please* not word things like that? There's just no
need for it.
I already wrote this to -test a couple of days ago:
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2010-October/095135.html
and we're
On Mon, 2010-11-01 at 03:54 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
There's exactly one constructive thing to do, it's repealing this set of
policies (Critical Path and Update Acceptance Criteria) in its entirety.
An update should go stable when the maintainer says so, karma should be
purely
On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 5:08 PM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
Saying 'oh dear, this might not work, we'd better not try' is rarely a
good approach, IMHO. It's better to try things, with the proviso that
you accept when they aren't working and withdraw or modify them.
I would agree
Adam Williamson píše v Po 01. 11. 2010 v 10:08 -0700:
We designed a policy,
put it into effect, now we're observing how well it works and we can
modify its implementation on the fly. It doesn't need to be done in an
adversarial spirit.
Given that _this exact scenario_ was repeatedly
On Mon, 2010-11-01 at 18:29 +0100, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
On the other hand, other scenarios were also brought up, which have not
come to pass - for instance, the same thing happening to Fedora 13 or
Fedora 14. If we had simply accepted the predictions of doom and not
implemented the
Adam Williamson píše v Po 01. 11. 2010 v 10:39 -0700:
On Mon, 2010-11-01 at 18:29 +0100, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
It's better to try things, with the proviso that
you accept when they aren't working and withdraw or modify them.
It's even better not to dismiss known problems with the policy,
On Mon, 2010-11-01 at 18:51 +0100, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
Sorry, but characterizing it as a 'known problem' is misleading. It's
easy to forecast failure, and you'll likely always be correct in *some*
cases if you forecast enough failures. Only if you precisely forecast
only the failures
Adam Williamson píše v Po 01. 11. 2010 v 10:55 -0700:
On Mon, 2010-11-01 at 18:51 +0100, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
Sorry, but characterizing it as a 'known problem' is misleading. It's
easy to forecast failure, and you'll likely always be correct in *some*
cases if you forecast enough
Adam Williamson wrote:
On the other hand, other scenarios were also brought up, which have not
come to pass - for instance, the same thing happening to Fedora 13 or
Fedora 14.
Nonsense. We just do not have enough evidence yet to show such things
happening for F13 and F14. They CAN, and IMHO
Adam Williamson wrote:
The policies prevented us from shipping a number of completely broken
updates, which is exactly what they were intended to do. I don't have a
command handy to do a search for rejected proposed critpath updates for
F14, but if you figure it out, you can see the precise
On Mon, 01 Nov 2010 19:26:43 +0100
Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote:
They also let several completely broken updates through and then
delayed the FIXES for those updates, exactly as I had been warning
about all the time.
Cite(s)?
For example, my firstboot update which was required
mån 2010-11-01 klockan 10:09 -0700 skrev Adam Williamson:
I disagree. The evidence you cite does not support this conclusion. We
implemented the policies for three releases. There are significant
problems with one release. This does not justify the conclusion that the
policies should be
On Mon, 2010-11-01 at 22:54 +0100, Henrik Nordström wrote:
mån 2010-11-01 klockan 10:09 -0700 skrev Adam Williamson:
I disagree. The evidence you cite does not support this conclusion. We
implemented the policies for three releases. There are significant
problems with one release. This
mån 2010-11-01 klockan 15:12 -0700 skrev Adam Williamson:
This is a reasonable modification of the idea that an update should only
require karma for one release (which would be nice if it were true but
unfortunately isn't). In practice, though, there isn't much wiggle room
for requiring
On Sun, 31 Oct 2010 04:37:38 +0100, Kevin wrote:
Martin Stransky wrote:
there's a new Firefox update waiting in Bodhi and we can't push it to
stable because of new rules. We recommend you to update to it ASAP as it
fixes a public critical 0day vulnerability
On 10/31/2010 03:18 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Sun, 31 Oct 2010 04:37:38 +0100, Kevin wrote:
Martin Stransky wrote:
there's a new Firefox update waiting in Bodhi and we can't push it to
stable because of new rules. We recommend you to update to it ASAP as it
fixes a public critical 0day
On Sun, 2010-10-31 at 04:37 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Martin Stransky wrote:
there's a new Firefox update waiting in Bodhi and we can't push it to
stable because of new rules. We recommend you to update to it ASAP as it
fixes a public critical 0day vulnerability
Adam Williamson píše v Ne 31. 10. 2010 v 18:06 -0700:
On Sun, 2010-10-31 at 04:37 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Yet another blatant example of
failure of the Update Acceptance Criteria, needlessly exposing our users to
critical vulnerabilities.
Kevin, could you *please* not word things
Adam Williamson wrote:
I already wrote this to -test a couple of days ago:
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2010-October/095135.html
and we're discussing it there. I think the thread demonstrates things
tend to go much more constructively if you avoid throwing words like
Martin Stransky wrote:
there's a new Firefox update waiting in Bodhi and we can't push it to
stable because of new rules. We recommend you to update to it ASAP as it
fixes a public critical 0day vulnerability
(https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=607222).
Looks like the F13 build got
71 matches
Mail list logo
