On Tue, 23 Nov 2010 18:55:38 +0100, Kevin wrote:
> Mike Fedyk wrote:
> > Install package from updates-testing, then +1 to karma after it works
> > for you with your tests and normal workload.
>
> The average user won't even KNOW there's an update available in updates-
> testing before it's too la
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 03:04:30PM -0800, Mike Fedyk wrote:
> This still builds a reactive system instead of a preventative system.
> An only reactive system will not help prevent bad updates from getting
> out in the first place.
>
> That said, adding a reactive component to a preventative syste
Michael Schwendt wrote:
> There are not enough [human] resources to update Fn-1 in any way it would
> be close[r] to the current release. You can observe it everywhere (even by
> drawing conclusions about ABRT reports) that Fn-2 is abandoned by our
> users months before its EOL date.
Uh, we'd have
On Mon, 22 Nov 2010 16:01:49 +0100, Kevin wrote:
> I think it's a big mistake to provide only second-class support for
> Fn-1. The assertion that that's what the people on Fn-1 want is just
> unfounded, based on a misunderstanding of why people use Fn-1.
There are not enough [human] resources t
Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> * Change FN-1 to just security and major bugfix. Nothing else allowed.
So, if:
1) a package is updated because of a security problem
2) next day, FN+1 is released
3) next day, it is found that the fix in 1) has a very minor bug (e.g. typo in
a string)
4) the string is not f
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 10:39:27PM +0100, Björn Persson wrote:
> Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> > There's one easy but deeply flawed way to do this -- automatically create
> > a usern...@fedoraproject.org bugzilla account for the user with the
> > password used in FAS. Deeply flawed in this case because
Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> We don't control RH bugzilla so changing bugzilla to be able to use fas to
> login would be problematic.
The right solution would really be to have a separate Fedora Bugzilla tied
in to Fedora infrastructure, with bug states which make sense for Fedora,
not RHEL etc.
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 07:06:33PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Till Maas wrote:
> > Afaik there is no need for a maintainer to set different acceptance
> > thresholds for his updates. At least nobody ever explained to me why
> > this would be helpful.
>
> * Upgrade paths! I DON'T want my foo-1.2.
Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> -Installs PackageKit plugin to give karma through the gnome-packagekit
> GUI. (Nothing exists yet, but I'm gonna get started on one soon)
What about KPackageKit?
Kevin Kofler
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org
Tom Lane wrote:
> (And yeah, if we allow +1 autopush, we should definitely expect -1 is
> sufficient to unpush. Maybe bodhi should restrict the combination of
> those two settings, rather than either one alone?)
Well, we've started to use +1/-999 for some KDE updates. :-)
Kevin Kofler
-
Adam Williamson wrote:
> I believe Kevin would say his position is that the update is better than
> what's there already *sufficiently often* that allowing unrestricted
> updates is a net benefit (the question is whether an occasional bad
> update is a worse problem than some updates being delayed
Till Maas wrote:
> Afaik there is no need for a maintainer to set different acceptance
> thresholds for his updates. At least nobody ever explained to me why
> this would be helpful.
* Upgrade paths! I DON'T want my foo-1.2.3-4.fc13 update to go out before my
foo-1.2.3-4.fc14 update, even if it h
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 10:39 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> (And yeah, if we allow +1 autopush, we should definitely expect -1 is
> sufficient to unpush. Maybe bodhi should restrict the combination of
> those two settings, rather than either one alone?)
Not as long people give -1 for random crap "oh thi
Adam Williamson wrote:
> The bodhi 2.0 solution is to decouple autopush and acceptance: they
> really shouldn't be paired, I think it's just an unintended consequence
> of the current code. You should be able to set +1 threshold for
> acceptance allowing the maintainer to then push manually, and +3
Mike Fedyk wrote:
> Install package from updates-testing, then +1 to karma after it works
> for you with your tests and normal workload.
The average user won't even KNOW there's an update available in updates-
testing before it's too late (i.e. all his/her data is gone, (s)he asks on
forums or IR
Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> So you'll double, triple, ultra swear that this[1] will never happen
> again?
>
> [1]
> http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/announce/2008-December/002572.html
That wasn't a data corruption issue in the first place. It was a low-severity
security fix, and the fix
Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-11-22 at 16:01 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>
>> Right, and the big point there should be that a bug which can corrupt
>> mail folders should be fixed IMMEDIATELY, i.e. with a direct stable push!
>> ANY testing requirement there is a failure.
>
> How about tes
Mike Fedyk wrote:
> So feel free to push directly to stable as often as you want, but once
> you introduce one regression, you have to satisfy 10 karma on every
> package you update. The second time, you have to satisfy 20 karma on
> every package you update and so on.
At that point you can just
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 01:29:45PM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> Here's the latest list of ideas culled from this thread.
>
> Note: these are NOT my ideas, I am just gathering them up so fesco can
> discuss them.
>
> Feel free to add more concrete ideas, or let me know if I missed one
> you had p
On 11/22/10 11:32 PM, Till Maas wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 02:33:35PM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
>> On 11/22/10 1:50 PM, Till Maas wrote:
>>> On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 12:02:49PM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
On 11/22/2010 11:56 AM, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> It was my understanding o
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 02:18:45PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-11-22 at 16:39 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Adam Williamson writes:
> > > On Mon, 2010-11-22 at 12:02 -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
> > >> Critpath requires +1 proven tester and +1 anybody. Total of +2. Non
> > >> crit-p
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 02:33:35PM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On 11/22/10 1:50 PM, Till Maas wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 12:02:49PM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
> >> On 11/22/2010 11:56 AM, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> >>> It was my understanding of reading the complaints that this is what
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 9:04 AM, Till Maas wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 09:57:40AM +0100, Henrik Nordström wrote:
>> sön 2010-11-21 klockan 11:00 +0100 skrev Till Maas:
>>
>> > I guess this can be somehow automated. E.g. change Bodhi to drop the
>> > karma requirements for packages that had e.
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 7:01 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Michal Hlavinka wrote:
>> this could help, but it's not always possible to add these test cases. One
>> example: imap server package - new bug that can corrupt mail folders in
>> some circumstances. Maintainer updates package and sets 'type=bu
On 11/22/10 1:50 PM, Till Maas wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 12:02:49PM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
>> On 11/22/2010 11:56 AM, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
>>> It was my understanding of reading the complaints that this is what they
>>> [complainers] desire - a reversal of what we require now (3
On Mon, 2010-11-22 at 16:39 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Adam Williamson writes:
> > On Mon, 2010-11-22 at 12:02 -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
> >> Critpath requires +1 proven tester and +1 anybody. Total of +2. Non
> >> crit-path requires a minimum of +1 anybody or a 7 day timeout I do believe.
> >>
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 12:02:49PM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On 11/22/2010 11:56 AM, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> > It was my understanding of reading the complaints that this is what they
> > [complainers] desire - a reversal of what we require now (3 karma and/or
> > proventester if critpat
Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 10:36:48PM -0600, Garrett Holmstrom wrote:
> > On 11/21/2010 17:51, Björn Persson wrote:
> > > Andre Robatino wrote:
> > >> My feeling is that it would be better for Bodhi to always require a
> > >> login. Even Bugzilla does that. I suspect that a lo
Adam Williamson writes:
> On Mon, 2010-11-22 at 12:02 -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
>> Critpath requires +1 proven tester and +1 anybody. Total of +2. Non
>> crit-path requires a minimum of +1 anybody or a 7 day timeout I do believe.
>>
>> I do not believe we require +3 anywhere. We /default/ th
Here's the latest list of ideas culled from this thread.
Note: these are NOT my ideas, I am just gathering them up so fesco can
discuss them.
Feel free to add more concrete ideas, or let me know if I missed one
you had posted. If folks could avoid "me too" or posts that contain no
new informati
On Mon, 2010-11-22 at 12:02 -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On 11/22/2010 11:56 AM, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> > It was my understanding of reading the complaints that this is what they
> > [complainers] desire - a reversal of what we require now (3 karma and/or
> > proventester if critpath).
>
Jesse Keating wrote:
> Critpath requires +1 proven tester and +1 anybody. Total of +2. Non
> crit-path requires a minimum of +1 anybody or a 7 day timeout I do believe.
>
> I do not believe we require +3 anywhere. We/default/ the karma
> autopush level at +3/-3, but that's just a suggestion.
>
On 11/22/2010 11:56 AM, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> It was my understanding of reading the complaints that this is what they
> [complainers] desire - a reversal of what we require now (3 karma and/or
> proventester if critpath).
Critpath requires +1 proven tester and +1 anybody. Total of +2.
Jesse Keating wrote:
> It sounds like what you're asking for is the ability to have a 0 karma
> autopush limit.
Yes, that was my intension. My mistake for not making it clearer.
It was my understanding of reading the complaints that this is what they
[complainers] desire - a reversal of what we
On 11/22/2010 11:42 AM, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> * Allow direct-to-stable
>
> If "Signed-off" bodhi checkbox (web) or command option (tui) is provided
> by the maintainer certifying that the maintainer believes the update
> will work. The check should default to off, and always off, to requi
Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> Other concrete ideas?
Quite frankly, I do not care for any of the ideas you mentioned. Here's
some of my own:
* Reduce quarantine time from 7 days to 3 days
Reasoning: Mirror syncing. I'm not going to actively seek out and
install 30 packages from koji every single day. I'
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 09:15:17AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-11-22 at 18:09 +0100, Emmanuel Seyman wrote:
> > The whole 'push directly to stable' arguement rests heavily on the principle
> > that an update is always better (from a QA standpoint) than whatever it's
> > replacing.
On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 10:36:48PM -0600, Garrett Holmstrom wrote:
> On 11/21/2010 17:51, Björn Persson wrote:
> > Andre Robatino wrote:
> >> My feeling is that it would be better for Bodhi to always require a login.
> >> Even Bugzilla does that. I suspect that a lot of people who give anonymous
>
On Mon, 2010-11-22 at 18:09 +0100, Emmanuel Seyman wrote:
> * Adam Miller [22/11/2010 18:03] :
> >
> > As though swearing it will never happen is even possible to deliver?
>
> I believe that's Michael's whole point.
>
> The whole 'push directly to stable' arguement rests heavily on the principl
* Adam Miller [22/11/2010 18:03] :
>
> As though swearing it will never happen is even possible to deliver?
I believe that's Michael's whole point.
The whole 'push directly to stable' arguement rests heavily on the principle
that an update is always better (from a QA standpoint) than whatever i
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 09:57:40AM +0100, Henrik Nordström wrote:
> sön 2010-11-21 klockan 11:00 +0100 skrev Till Maas:
>
> > I guess this can be somehow automated. E.g. change Bodhi to drop the
> > karma requirements for packages that had e.g. two subsequent updates
> > without any Bodhi feedback
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 10:49:38AM -0600, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > Right, and the big point there should be that a bug which can corrupt mail
> > folders should be fixed IMMEDIATELY, i.e. with a direct stable push! ANY
> > testing requirement there is a failure.
>
> So
Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Right, and the big point there should be that a bug which can corrupt mail
> folders should be fixed IMMEDIATELY, i.e. with a direct stable push! ANY
> testing requirement there is a failure.
So you'll double, triple, ultra swear that this[1] will never happen again?
[1]
ht
On Mon, 2010-11-22 at 16:01 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Right, and the big point there should be that a bug which can corrupt mail
> folders should be fixed IMMEDIATELY, i.e. with a direct stable push! ANY
> testing requirement there is a failure.
How about testing that it doesn't corrupt mail
Michal Hlavinka wrote:
> I like this idea, but I'm pretty sure this won't happen. I don't like the
> bureaucracy you can see all around you. Fixing problems caused by
> individual failure (or individual's failure) with new policy/law does not
> make happy contributors/people. This is the exact beha
On Saturday, November 20, 2010 23:35:43 Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> ok, I dug through the devel list for the last month or two and wrote
> down all the various ideas folks have come up with to change/improve
> things.
>
> Here (in no particular order) are the ideas and some notes from me on
> how we coul
sön 2010-11-21 klockan 11:00 +0100 skrev Till Maas:
> I guess this can be somehow automated. E.g. change Bodhi to drop the
> karma requirements for packages that had e.g. two subsequent updates
> without any Bodhi feedback and re-enable it if they get feedback.
That would be somewhat counter prod
On Sun, 21 Nov 2010 12:42:00 +0100
Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Nov 2010 15:35:43 -0700, Kevin wrote:
>
> > Other concrete ideas?
>
> As a beginning, let's limit this thread to at most one message per
> person per day.
That would be lovely. I guess this would be my sunday message. ;)
On 11/21/2010 17:51, Björn Persson wrote:
> Andre Robatino wrote:
>> My feeling is that it would be better for Bodhi to always require a login.
>> Even Bugzilla does that. I suspect that a lot of people who give anonymous
>> karma don't realize that it doesn't count, and would have created an
>> ac
Andre Robatino wrote:
> My feeling is that it would be better for Bodhi to always require a login.
> Even Bugzilla does that. I suspect that a lot of people who give anonymous
> karma don't realize that it doesn't count, and would have created an
> account if they did. And using an account allows p
On 11/21/10 11:00 AM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> meantime resets the time that a package
> needs to wait to get to stable. Could bodhi be changed to let multiple
> packages be in the testing repository at one time and only obsolete them
> when a newer package enters the stable repo? That woul
Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> packages. Perhaps this could be longer than for non-critpath. The big
> issue that people have observed with depending on timeouts, though, is
> that pushing new updates in the meantime resets the time that a package
> needs to wait to get to stable. Could bodhi
Toshio Kuratomi gmail.com> writes:
> Lack of manpower ideas:
>
> * Allow anonymous karma to count. Anonymous karma would allow more people
> who report bugs in bugzilla to add karma in bodhi without having to get
> a second account in the Fedora Account System. For critpath packages,
> w
On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 03:35:43PM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> ok, I dug through the devel list for the last month or two and wrote
> down all the various ideas folks have come up with to change/improve
> things.
>
> Here (in no particular order) are the ideas and some notes from me on
> how we c
On Sat, 20 Nov 2010 15:35:43 -0700, Kevin wrote:
> Other concrete ideas?
As a beginning, let's limit this thread to at most one message per person
per day.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Till Maas wrote:
> All of this could be combined. E.g. packages with enough testers get
> test cases and need to fulfill stronger criteria. Packages with not so
> many testers get test cases and only need to fulfil that similar
> updates need to receive good karma on one Fedora release.
>
> Off co
On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 03:35:43PM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> * require testing only for packages where people have signed up to be testers
>
> Packages without 'official' testers could bypass testing or have some lower
> karma
> requirement. We would need for this a list of packages that have
Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> * Just drop all the requirements/go back to before we had any updates
> criteria.
That's really the only way to go. The policy failed, it's time to withdraw
it. All the other proposed solutions require even more complexity in the
software and policies, for little to no gai
On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 11:35 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> ok, I dug through the devel list for the last month or two and wrote
> down all the various ideas folks have come up with to change/improve
> things.
>
> Here (in no particular order) are the ideas and some notes from me on
> how we could enab
ok, I dug through the devel list for the last month or two and wrote
down all the various ideas folks have come up with to change/improve
things.
Here (in no particular order) are the ideas and some notes from me on
how we could enable them. Please feel free to add new (actual/concrete
ideas or n
60 matches
Mail list logo
