Sayan Chowdhury wrote:
> I recently packaged and pushed an update for
> fedmsg-meta-fedora-infrastructure to bodhi and exactly 40 secs[1] later I
> got a +1 to the update. I am sure that testing a package surely takes more
> than 40 secs. This makes me really curious that are the packages really
>
On Wed, 2016-07-13 at 10:21 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 13/07/16 08:21 +0530, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 03:45:54PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > >
> > > Bodhi works at the source package level, not binary package level.
>
> That's irrelevant. If a sourc
On 13/07/16 08:21 +0530, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 03:45:54PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
Bodhi works at the source package level, not binary package level.
That's irrelevant. If a source package only provides a library for
other packages to link against then testing
On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 11:52:45PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> FWIW, as someone who is working on this, I don't think we can
> realistically aim to do distribution-level automated testing with per-
> package granularity. We actually have all the bits in place to do
> something like that if we w
On Tue, 2016-07-12 at 23:52 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
>
> Of course, we don't *have* to pick one thing or the other necessarily;
> we can certainly provide all the appropriate hooks for packages to do
> automated update testing, this is something folks are already looking
> at, and there's no
On Wed, 2016-07-13 at 11:08 +0530, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 10:26:20PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> >
> > It would not be 'a lot of work', it would be a gigantic, totally
> > unsustainable burden. I honestly think you're shooting *way* too high
> > here. Even with all
On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 10:26:20PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> It would not be 'a lot of work', it would be a gigantic, totally
> unsustainable burden. I honestly think you're shooting *way* too high
> here. Even with all the recent volunteers, we have like a couple dozen
I agree it is a massi
On Wed, 2016-07-13 at 10:55 +0530, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
> An individual wanting to get started in Fedora packaging has to prove
> their competence and understanding of the packaging guidelines by
> commenting on package review requests in addition to submitting their
> own package for review.
On Wed, 2016-07-13 at 08:21 +0530, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 03:45:54PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> >
> > Bodhi works at the source package level, not binary package level.
>
> I think Jon's point was with respect to the scope of testing. With
> glibc (or libstdc++
On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 09:12:25PM -0700, Gerald B. Cox wrote:
> Instead of concentrating on testers, what about the packagers who don't
> even test their
> applications before throwing them over the wall to bodhi. I've seen
> packages that didn't even
> get past a simple dnf requisite test becaus
On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 7:47 PM, Siddhesh Poyarekar
wrote:
> ... which is not enough. The definition of 'generally functional' is
> vague, as all of us agree and we have seen examples of that being
> misused in the past. Requiring devel to document their packages is
> one step forward and requi
On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 03:45:54PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> Bodhi works at the source package level, not binary package level.
I think Jon's point was with respect to the scope of testing. With
glibc (or libstdc++ that Jon would be concerned with), an ideal set of
sanity tests would cover
On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 12:16:59PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> This is setting far too high a bar for a project like Fedora. We take
> the feedback we can get, we are not in a position to demand all update
> testers perform comprehensive testing of all possible facets of an
> update. It is alwa
On Tue, 2016-07-12 at 23:32 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 12/07/16 16:26 -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> >
> > Some packages are definitely going to be harder than others...
>
> For example, a libfoo, and its libfoo-devel subpackage.
Bodhi works at the source package level, not binary package l
On Tue, 2016-07-12 at 16:26 -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Jul 2016 09:49:14 -0700
> Adam Williamson wrote:
>
> >
> > So I've been discussing this with various people in the last few days,
> > and one specific idea has come out of that which I'd like to float.
> >
> > We've been hesitan
On 12/07/16 16:26 -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
Some packages are definitely going to be harder than others...
For example, a libfoo, and its libfoo-devel subpackage.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
On Tue, 12 Jul 2016 09:49:14 -0700
Adam Williamson wrote:
> So I've been discussing this with various people in the last few days,
> and one specific idea has come out of that which I'd like to float.
>
> We've been hesitant to suggest this before as we thought packagers
> might not like the ide
On Wed, 2016-07-13 at 00:18 +0530, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 11:38:01AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> >
> > This isn't really correct, because there is no simple relationship
> > between 'bugs claimed to be fixed actually are fixed' and 'update
> > should be released'.
On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 11:38:01AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> This isn't really correct, because there is no simple relationship
> between 'bugs claimed to be fixed actually are fixed' and 'update
> should be released'. Both of these are possible:
>
> 1) an update which fixes the bugs it clai
On Tue, 2016-07-12 at 23:57 +0530, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 09:49:14AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> >
> > To be clear, the idea would be to have general-purpose instructions for
> > basic functionality testing of each package, not requiring new 'how to
> > test' text
On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 09:49:14AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> To be clear, the idea would be to have general-purpose instructions for
> basic functionality testing of each package, not requiring new 'how to
> test' text to be written for every individual package update,
> specifically tailored
2016-07-12 10:49 GMT-06:00 Adam Williamson :
> On Sun, 2016-07-10 at 21:30 +0530, Sayan Chowdhury wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I recently packaged and pushed an update for
> fedmsg-meta-fedora-infrastructure
> > to bodhi and exactly 40 secs[1] later I got a +1 to the update. I am
> sure that
> > testing
On Sun, 2016-07-10 at 21:30 +0530, Sayan Chowdhury wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I recently packaged and pushed an update for fedmsg-meta-fedora-infrastructure
> to bodhi and exactly 40 secs[1] later I got a +1 to the update. I am sure that
> testing a package surely takes more than 40 secs. This makes me real
"Gerald B. Cox" writes:
> It's very simple to control whether something is pushed automatically, and
> it's also easy
> to control the amount of karma required for the automatic push.
Yes, I edited it.
> Not only
> is it documented, it is in the file you
> modify when submitting the update. Yo
hi Sayan (and other folks),
thanks for your work with my packages
regards
.g
Il 12/07/2016 08:27, Sayan Chowdhury ha scritto:
On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 11:22 AM, Buvanesh Kumar wrote:
Hi Sayan,
I have tested your package and verified it in Fedora 24 release. It works
fine. Thanks for push
On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 11:22 AM, Buvanesh Kumar wrote:
> Hi Sayan,
> I have tested your package and verified it in Fedora 24 release. It works
> fine. Thanks for pushing it to bodhi for testing. Since there was no test
> case, I just installed it but after careful evaluation, I installed Fedor
>
> Yes , it does. Now let me put forward the actual idea of having an QA
> sprints succeeding an onboarding call. As Adam mentioned we have many new
> contributors coming in and hence there was a need to ensure that the
> packages are being tested correctly . Over a span of 2+ weeks the new
> cont
On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 10:19 AM, Dave Love wrote:
> I didn't realize that this automation actually got things pushed rather
> than simply marked as able to be pushed. That's likely documented,
> though I haven't had time to check the documentation, and presumably
> it's my fault. However, I gu
Adam Williamson writes:
> "Install the package and see if the system breaks" is an appropriate
> form of testing for some packages, but not all, many are not at all
> related to typical desktop system functionality. Folks do need to make
> sure they understand what a package is for and have actua
On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 8:31 AM, Till Hofmann
wrote:
> IMHO that's a strong reason against a freeze on giving karma until the
> package has been in testing for a certain amount of time. In fact, I
> sometimes give +1 on updates that haven't been pushed at all yet. One
> example [1]: I reported a
On Mon, 2016-07-11 at 06:37 +, Raphael Groner wrote:
> I got karma on packages that were in stable already for a long time. The
> karma system is too tolerant in my eyes.
>
> Why is it possible to give +1 to stable packages? Bodhi may deny or at least
> impede such actions, -1 or neutral com
On Mon, 2016-07-11 at 15:12 +, Christian Stadelmann wrote:
> First, have you contacted them? This looks like a misunderstanding
> between the way you (and probably most fedora packagers + bodhi
> developers) think "karma" works and the way they understand it.
>
> My perspective is being someon
On 07/11/2016 05:11 PM, Gerald B. Cox wrote:
> Regarding the comment regarding karma left 40 seconds after the package
> was pushed... it could
> be that the person earlier had downloaded the package directly from
> koji, because they did not
> want to wait DAYS for the package to be pushed to the
First, have you contacted them? This looks like a misunderstanding between the
way you (and probably most fedora packagers + bodhi developers) think "karma"
works and the way they understand it.
My perspective is being someone who often tests packages but doesn't package
them.
From my point of
On Sun, Jul 10, 2016 at 9:00 AM, Sayan Chowdhury <
sayan.chowdhury2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> After going through messages in datagrepper[2][3], I found that few people
> are
> giving out karma in one go (4-5 packages under a minute). If these packages
> really are not-tested and the karma are give
Hi,
On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 2:19 PM, Kamil Paral wrote:
>> Any kind of feedback after package gets into updates repository should
>> be denied, I can't think of a case where package moves to updates
>> repository and bodhi still allows to add comments/karma. Any feedback
>> after that can be eith
Dne 11.7.2016 v 11:00 Christian Dersch napsal(a):
>
> On 07/11/2016 10:49 AM, Kamil Paral wrote:
>>> Any kind of feedback after package gets into updates repository should
>>> be denied, I can't think of a case where package moves to updates
>>> repository and bodhi still allows to add comments/k
> On 07/11/2016 10:49 AM, Kamil Paral wrote:
> >> Any kind of feedback after package gets into updates repository should
> >> be denied, I can't think of a case where package moves to updates
> >> repository and bodhi still allows to add comments/karma. Any feedback
> >> after that can be either re
W dniu 11.07.2016 o 10:59, Raphael Groner pisze:
>> W dniu 10.07.2016 o 18:00, Sayan Chowdhury pisze:
>>
>>
>> What about situation when maintainer X scratch built package Y, got
>> it tested by few people (let name them A, C, E, F) before
>> submitting it to stable-updates?
>>
>> Once package e
On Mon, 11 Jul 2016 08:59:54 -
"Raphael Groner" wrote:
> > W dniu 10.07.2016 o 18:00, Sayan Chowdhury pisze:
> >
> >
> > What about situation when maintainer X scratch built package Y, got
> > it tested by few people (let name them A, C, E, F) before
> > submitting it to stable-updates?
> >
On 07/11/2016 10:49 AM, Kamil Paral wrote:
>> Any kind of feedback after package gets into updates repository should
>> be denied, I can't think of a case where package moves to updates
>> repository and bodhi still allows to add comments/karma. Any feedback
>> after that can be either reported i
> W dniu 10.07.2016 o 18:00, Sayan Chowdhury pisze:
>
>
> What about situation when maintainer X scratch built package Y, got it
> tested by few people (let name them A, C, E, F) before submitting it to
> stable-updates?
>
> Once package enters stable-updates A, C, E, F give +1 to package as it
> Any kind of feedback after package gets into updates repository should
> be denied, I can't think of a case where package moves to updates
> repository and bodhi still allows to add comments/karma. Any feedback
> after that can be either reported in bugzilla or to the package
> maintainers direct
Hi,
On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 12:26 PM, Ville Skyttä wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 9:37 AM, Raphael Groner
> wrote:
>
>> Why is it possible to give +1 to stable packages? Bodhi may deny or at least
>> impede such actions, -1 or neutral comments should be still possible though
>> for users hav
W dniu 10.07.2016 o 18:00, Sayan Chowdhury pisze:
> I recently packaged and pushed an update for
> fedmsg-meta-fedora-infrastructure to bodhi and exactly 40 secs[1]
> later I got a +1 to the update. I am sure that testing a package
> surely takes more than 40 secs. This makes me really curious tha
On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 9:37 AM, Raphael Groner
wrote:
> Why is it possible to give +1 to stable packages? Bodhi may deny or at least
> impede such actions, -1 or neutral comments should be still possible though
> for users having issues.
I disagree with allowing -1. At best, it's meaningless
I got karma on packages that were in stable already for a long time. The karma
system is too tolerant in my eyes.
Why is it possible to give +1 to stable packages? Bodhi may deny or at least
impede such actions, -1 or neutral comments should be still possible though for
users having issues.
In
On Mon, 2016-07-11 at 11:22 +0530, Buvanesh Kumar wrote:
> Hi Sayan,
> I have tested your package and verified it in Fedora 24 release. It works
> fine. Thanks for pushing it to bodhi for testing. Since there was no test
> case, I just installed it but after careful evaluation, I installed Fedor
On Sun, 2016-07-10 at 21:30 +0530, Sayan Chowdhury wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I recently packaged and pushed an update for fedmsg-meta-fedora-infrastructure
> to bodhi and exactly 40 secs[1] later I got a +1 to the update. I am sure that
> testing a package surely takes more than 40 secs. This makes me real
Hi,
positive karma on a set of packages within short time can happen when
people use fedora-easy-karma. Thats my way of giving karma too, I use
the stuff for some hours, the I run fedora-easy-karma and give feedback
on all packages i've tested (and of course skip the ones I did not test ;).
But +
Hi,
I recently packaged and pushed an update for fedmsg-meta-fedora-infrastructure
to bodhi and exactly 40 secs[1] later I got a +1 to the update. I am sure that
testing a package surely takes more than 40 secs. This makes me really curious
that are the packages really being tested before giving o
51 matches
Mail list logo
