Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

[Adam Williamson]

On Sun, 2017-10-15 at 09:59 -0700, Gerald B. Cox wrote:
> For those of you who were concerned about LastPass:
> 
> https://www.engadget.com/2017/10/13/lastpass-beta-firefox-57-webextension/
> 
> The beta version is available now - The final version will be ready when
> the browser arrives on November 14th.
> 
> As I mentioned earlier, for those who want to use a GPLv3 product, check
> out Bitwarden:
> 
> https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/bitwarden-password-manager/

BTW, thanks for the tip on this, I'm trying it out now. Though I'm a
bit unsure whether 'F/OSS but backed by Microsoft and written all in
Microsoft things and hosted on Azure' wins out over 'not-F/OSS' in my
book :P
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

[John Florian]

On Mon, 2017-10-16 at 15:03 +0100, James Hogarth wrote:
> On 16 October 2017 at 14:58, John Florian  wrote:
> > On Sun, 2017-10-15 at 09:23 -0700, Gerald B. Cox wrote:
> > >  people are going to notice is the improved performance and
> > > cleaner interface.
> > 
> > Yes!  Because of this thread's original message, I pulled 57 into
> > F26 eager to try it out (on $dayjob workstation).  Now I want it at
> > $home workstation.   Is there a COPR or some alternative for early
> > testers in F26 now that the update has been withdrawn?  I'd do more
> > looking on my own, but our corporate web proxy right now is eating
> > kittens and other helpless creatures and might as well be unplugged
> > for all the good it's doing me.
> > ___
> > 
> > devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> > 
> > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
> > 
> > 
> 
> I'm just writing up a Fedora Magazine article covering this at
> present ;)
> 
> I have a build running in a COPR now, and the article will include
> details of that.
> 
> Since we *are* on the development list where COPR is normal ... ;)
> 
> Up till the point FF57 rejoins updates-testing in F26 sometime in
> November I'm going to track commits to the F27/rawhide FF57 packages
> and build them for F25 and F26 for early testing.
> 
> https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/jhogarth/firefox57/
> 
> The builds are completing at present ... once they have completed
> you'll be able to pick it up there.

Excellent!  Thank you for doing this.___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

[Robert-André Mauchin]

On lundi 16 octobre 2017 15:58:32 CEST John Florian wrote:
> On Sun, 2017-10-15 at 09:23 -0700, Gerald B. Cox wrote:
> >  people are going to notice is the improved performance and cleaner
> > 
> > interface.
> 
> Yes!  Because of this thread's original message, I pulled 57 into F26
> eager to try it out (on $dayjob workstation).  Now I want it at $home
> workstation.   Is there a COPR or some alternative for early testers in
> F26 now that the update has been withdrawn?  I'd do more looking on my
> own, but our corporate web proxy right now is eating kittens and other
> helpless creatures and might as well be unplugged for all the good it's
> doing me.


If you don't mind living on the edge, I provide weekly builds of Firefox 
Nightly (58) here: 
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/eclipseo/firefox-nightly/

It contains all the Fedora specific patches, including Martin's CSD patch. 
It's stable, at least for me.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

[James Hogarth]

On 16 October 2017 at 14:58, John Florian  wrote:

> On Sun, 2017-10-15 at 09:23 -0700, Gerald B. Cox wrote:
>
>  people are going to notice is the improved performance and cleaner
> interface.
>
>
> Yes! Because of this thread's original message, I pulled 57 into F26 eager
> to try it out (on $dayjob workstation). Now I want it at $home workstation.
> Is there a COPR or some alternative for early testers in F26 now that the
> update has been withdrawn? I'd do more looking on my own, but our corporate
> web proxy right now is eating kittens and other helpless creatures and
> might as well be unplugged for all the good it's doing me.
>
> ___
> devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
>
>
I'm just writing up a Fedora Magazine article covering this at present ;)

I have a build running in a COPR now, and the article will include details
of that.

Since we *are* on the development list where COPR is normal ... ;)

Up till the point FF57 rejoins updates-testing in F26 sometime in November
I'm going to track commits to the F27/rawhide FF57 packages and build them
for F25 and F26 for early testing.

https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/jhogarth/firefox57/

The builds are completing at present ... once they have completed you'll be
able to pick it up there.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

[John Florian]

On Sun, 2017-10-15 at 09:23 -0700, Gerald B. Cox wrote:
>  people are going to notice is the improved performance and cleaner
> interface.

Yes!  Because of this thread's original message, I pulled 57 into F26
eager to try it out (on $dayjob workstation).  Now I want it at $home
workstation.   Is there a COPR or some alternative for early testers in
F26 now that the update has been withdrawn?  I'd do more looking on my
own, but our corporate web proxy right now is eating kittens and other
helpless creatures and might as well be unplugged for all the good it's
doing me.___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

[Gerald B. Cox]

For those of you who were concerned about LastPass:

https://www.engadget.com/2017/10/13/lastpass-beta-firefox-57-webextension/

The beta version is available now - The final version will be ready when
the browser arrives on November 14th.

As I mentioned earlier, for those who want to use a GPLv3 product, check
out Bitwarden:

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/bitwarden-password-manager/
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

[Gerald B. Cox]

On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 7:47 AM, Gerald Henriksen 
wrote:

> Except FF57 is stable (at least no one so far is complaining about it
> being otherwise).
>
> For those who use its plugins then there may be an issue (depending on
> how many do a last minute update vs. can't/won't be udated) but that
> day of reckoning is coming sooner or later unless they choose to never
> update Firefox again.
>

Completely agree.  Fx 57 is an extremely important release for Mozilla and
they've done
and excellent job communicating the changes and getting the release ready.
The main
thing people are going to notice is the improved performance and cleaner
interface.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

[Gerald Henriksen]

On Sun, 15 Oct 2017 15:35:56 +0200, you wrote:

>IMHO, it would be reasonable and common sense to either postpone F27 
>until FF57 has become stable or to revert the firefox change.

Except FF57 is stable (at least no one so far is complaining about it
being otherwise).

For those who use its plugins then there may be an issue (depending on
how many do a last minute update vs. can't/won't be udated) but that
day of reckoning is coming sooner or later unless they choose to never
update Firefox again.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

[Ralf Corsepius]

On 10/13/2017 07:11 PM, nicolas.mail...@laposte.net wrote:


Which all means our release planning is too focused on Gnome and not enough 
thought is put into the roadmap of major non-Gnome desktop apps such as Firefox 
or Libreoffice. I'd argue that this kind of Firefox change is way more 
impacting for our users than the latest gnome settings redesign.


Definitely. Fedora in danger to become (or already is) Gnome's and 
Firefox's "puppet".



This needs to change. Fedora should be in service of its users not 
arbitrary upstreams or their package maintainers.



Too late to switch to ESR now, the best outcome would be to make FF57 a major 
feature of F27 (since it will be), ship it (even as prerelease) from day 1 and 
pretend that was always what our release engineering intended to do.
IMHO, it would be reasonable and common sense to either postpone F27 
until FF57 has become stable or to revert the firefox change.


Ralf
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

[Simo Sorce]

On Sat, 2017-10-14 at 04:23 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
> 
> Am 13.10.2017 um 18:58 schrieb Simo Sorce:
> > On Fri, 2017-10-13 at 09:43 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > Adam not replying just to you but the general thread.
> > What is the point of bringing up all these plugins breakage ? If
> > Mozilla doesn't care, at most you are going to defer the inevitable
> > by
> > what? 2/3 weeks ? You can do the same by deferring your upgrade to
> > Fedora 27 on your own 
> 
> do you not realize that FF57 is in updates-testing of FEDORA 26
> currently?

Yes, that is a mistake, there is no need to get all heated up about
that.

Simo.

-- 
Simo Sorce
Sr. Principal Software Engineer
Red Hat, Inc
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

[Thomas Moschny]

2017-10-13 16:26 GMT+02:00 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek :
> Sure, that's what everybody knows. But without going from generalities
> to details of a specific extension, we're just speculating idly.

Here's another one:
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/advanced-locationbar/

"Warning! This extension will stop work in Firefox 57+ since this
version of the browser supports WebExtensions API only. It is not
possible to implement this extension using WebExtensions API."

Same holds for the alternative
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/locationbar²/

- Thomas
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

[Gerald B. Cox]

On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 12:05 PM, Adam Williamson <
adamw...@fedoraproject.org> wrote:

> On Fri, 2017-10-13 at 12:58 -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
> > On Fri, 2017-10-13 at 09:43 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2017-10-13 at 14:26 +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 02:55:37PM +0100, Peter Oliver wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, 13 Oct 2017, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > All the energy devoted to this thread would imho be better
> > > > > > spent on
> > > > > > trying to encourage the authors of popular extensions to update
> > > > > > to the
> > > > > > new model,
> > > > >
> >
> > Adam not replying just to you but the general thread.
> > What is the point of bringing up all these plugins breakage ?
>
> Zbigniew specifically asked for examples.
>


I posted this in the other thread, but will repost here:


https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2015/08/21/the-future-of-
developing-firefox-add-ons/

https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2017/02/16/the-road-to-
firefox-57-compatibility-milestones/

https://arewewebextensionsyet.com/


The above are good links to familiarize yourself with what is going on with
Fx.

Yes, some extensions are not being ported... but many are.

The nice thing now is that many chrome excellent chrome extensions will now
be available to Fx users because
they will be easier to modify, for example the excellent Checker Plus
extensions for GMail, Google Calendar and Drive.
Those are available NOW and have been for some time.

Conversely developers are now interested in making some Fx extensions
available for Chrome, for example DownloadThemAll

People who are frustrated LastPass isn't yet a webextension (don't worry,
LogMeIn willl meet the deadline) can also checkout
Bitwarden... it's available now, and as a plus is GPLv3 - I've been using
it for about a month and decided to switch from LastPass, because
IMO it's better.
People who are interested in SpeedDial, try out the excellent:  New Tab
Tools
Those who want adblockers... there is uBlock Origin

Those are just a few examples.  This isn't Fx Apocalypse - it's an
opportunity to discover a whole new world
of extensions and enjoy a revived, multi-threaded much improved Fx.

Yes, change is hard and people resist it.  That is human nature - but as
the saying goes...
"The train is leaving the station... get onboard, or get left behind.'"

Not trying to be confrontational or upset anybody, but that is the
reality.  Mozilla isn't going to go backward and
change their strategy... ain't gonna happen.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

[Adam Williamson]

On Fri, 2017-10-13 at 12:58 -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
> On Fri, 2017-10-13 at 09:43 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Fri, 2017-10-13 at 14:26 +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> > > On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 02:55:37PM +0100, Peter Oliver wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 13 Oct 2017, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > All the energy devoted to this thread would imho be better
> > > > > spent on
> > > > > trying to encourage the authors of popular extensions to update
> > > > > to the
> > > > > new model,
> > > > 
> > > > My understanding is that the new API lacks capabilities needed to
> > > > make some extensions possible.  Mozilla may or may not
> > > > reimplement
> > > > some of these functionalities in the future, but, for the time
> > > > being, there’s little that the authors of such extensions can do.
> > > 
> > > Sure, that's what everybody knows. But without going from
> > > generalities
> > > to details of a specific extension, we're just speculating idly.
> > 
> > Someone's given one example already, here's another:
> > 
> > https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/calomel-ssl-validation
> > /
> > 
> > "IMPORTANT: Development of the Calomel SSL Validation addon has been
> > put on hold. Mozilla is disabling XUL and XPCOM in Firefox which
> > means
> > the addon is no longer able to query the current browser tab for the
> > TLS certificate and cipher information."
> > 
> > Sure, you can just manually inspect the details of any given site's
> > certificate and TLS config, but Calomel's icon and grading system
> > made
> > it much easier to notice when some important site had a bad config.
> > :/
> 
> Adam not replying just to you but the general thread.
> What is the point of bringing up all these plugins breakage ?

Zbigniew specifically asked for examples.
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

[nicolas . mailhot]

> Does this update break the entire browser?

No, it's more akin to the switch from Gnome 2 to Gnome 3: lots of changes all 
over the place, old trusted features gone, replacements not totally there and 
in any case different requiring user adaptation.

Which all means our release planning is too focused on Gnome and not enough 
thought is put into the roadmap of major non-Gnome desktop apps such as Firefox 
or Libreoffice. I'd argue that this kind of Firefox change is way more 
impacting for our users than the latest gnome settings redesign.

Too late to switch to ESR now, the best outcome would be to make FF57 a major 
feature of F27 (since it will be), ship it (even as prerelease) from day 1 and 
pretend that was always what our release engineering intended to do.

Regards,

-- 
Nicolas Mailhot
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

[Alessio Ciregia]

On Oct 13, 2017 19:00, "Simo Sorce"  wrote:


We are Fedora and we are First, even when it is painful IMHO.


I count for little in the Fedora community, but this is exactly my opinion
in this discussion.

A.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

[Simo Sorce]

On Fri, 2017-10-13 at 09:43 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Fri, 2017-10-13 at 14:26 +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 02:55:37PM +0100, Peter Oliver wrote:
> > > On Fri, 13 Oct 2017, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> > > 
> > > > All the energy devoted to this thread would imho be better
> > > > spent on
> > > > trying to encourage the authors of popular extensions to update
> > > > to the
> > > > new model,
> > > 
> > > My understanding is that the new API lacks capabilities needed to
> > > make some extensions possible.  Mozilla may or may not
> > > reimplement
> > > some of these functionalities in the future, but, for the time
> > > being, there’s little that the authors of such extensions can do.
> > 
> > Sure, that's what everybody knows. But without going from
> > generalities
> > to details of a specific extension, we're just speculating idly.
> 
> Someone's given one example already, here's another:
> 
> https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/calomel-ssl-validation
> /
> 
> "IMPORTANT: Development of the Calomel SSL Validation addon has been
> put on hold. Mozilla is disabling XUL and XPCOM in Firefox which
> means
> the addon is no longer able to query the current browser tab for the
> TLS certificate and cipher information."
> 
> Sure, you can just manually inspect the details of any given site's
> certificate and TLS config, but Calomel's icon and grading system
> made
> it much easier to notice when some important site had a bad config.
> :/

Adam not replying just to you but the general thread.
What is the point of bringing up all these plugins breakage ? If
Mozilla doesn't care, at most you are going to defer the inevitable by
what? 2/3 weeks ? You can do the same by deferring your upgrade to
Fedora 27 on your own ... or manually downloading the ESR from Mozilla
and running that one.

We are Fedora and we are First, even when it is painful IMHO.
The only case when it is appropriate to discuss slowing down a project
is if there are known security/privacy/whatever vulnerabilities that
are going to be addressed very soon upstream anyway.

If the *direction* of the project is under discussion then the only
appropriate way is to let the project go and search for a replacement
for the default.

In light of this I think any suggestion of slowing down adoption of the
new version in F27 is misplaced.

Simo.

-- 
Simo Sorce
Sr. Principal Software Engineer
Red Hat, Inc
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

[Adam Williamson]

On Fri, 2017-10-13 at 18:48 +0200, Robert-André Mauchin wrote:
> On vendredi 13 octobre 2017 17:48:51 CEST Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Fri, 2017-10-13 at 15:56 +0100, Tom Hughes wrote:
> > 
> > > On 13/10/17 15:26, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > Sure, that's what everybody knows. But without going from generalities
> > > > to details of a specific extension, we're just speculating idly.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > So lets do a little review of the things I have installed in one of my 
> > > firefox instances that aren't currently firefox 57 compatible... This is 
> > > after I've dumped some rarely used things that I decided were unlikely 
> > > to get an update.
> > > 
> > > Cookie Monster
> > > 
> > > 
> > >Seemed to have been removed from AMO and no obvious replacement.
> > 
> > 
> > I use(d) Self Destructing Cookies, but the page for that one says it's
> > not being rewritten as a webextension and will be abandoned:
> > 
> > https://addons.mozilla.org/EN-US/firefox/addon/self-destructing-cookies/
> > 
> > "This add-on is no longer maintained. It is incompatible with Firefox
> > 55+ and this will never change. Also, it will not be rewritten as a
> > WebExtension."
> > 
> 
> You can replace SDC with Cookie AutoDelete by Kenny Do:
> 
> https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/cookie-autodelete/

Uhhh...you mean like the *very next paragraph of my email*, which you
cut out, said?

I mean, good grief, maybe finish reading it before hitting Reply next
time?
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

[Robert-André Mauchin]

On vendredi 13 octobre 2017 17:48:51 CEST Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Fri, 2017-10-13 at 15:56 +0100, Tom Hughes wrote:
> 
> > On 13/10/17 15:26, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > > Sure, that's what everybody knows. But without going from generalities
> > > to details of a specific extension, we're just speculating idly.
> > 
> > 
> > So lets do a little review of the things I have installed in one of my 
> > firefox instances that aren't currently firefox 57 compatible... This is 
> > after I've dumped some rarely used things that I decided were unlikely 
> > to get an update.
> > 
> > Cookie Monster
> > 
> > 
> >Seemed to have been removed from AMO and no obvious replacement.
> 
> 
> I use(d) Self Destructing Cookies, but the page for that one says it's
> not being rewritten as a webextension and will be abandoned:
> 
> https://addons.mozilla.org/EN-US/firefox/addon/self-destructing-cookies/
> 
> "This add-on is no longer maintained. It is incompatible with Firefox
> 55+ and this will never change. Also, it will not be rewritten as a
> WebExtension."
> 

You can replace SDC with Cookie AutoDelete by Kenny Do:

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/cookie-autodelete/

It does not support the removal of Localstorage or IndexedDB yet, but the API 
allowing this are landing in Firefox 58:

 - https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1388428
 - https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1333050
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

[Adam Williamson]

On Fri, 2017-10-13 at 14:26 +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 02:55:37PM +0100, Peter Oliver wrote:
> > On Fri, 13 Oct 2017, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> > 
> > > All the energy devoted to this thread would imho be better spent on
> > > trying to encourage the authors of popular extensions to update to the
> > > new model,
> > 
> > My understanding is that the new API lacks capabilities needed to
> > make some extensions possible.  Mozilla may or may not reimplement
> > some of these functionalities in the future, but, for the time
> > being, there’s little that the authors of such extensions can do.
> 
> Sure, that's what everybody knows. But without going from generalities
> to details of a specific extension, we're just speculating idly.

Someone's given one example already, here's another:

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/calomel-ssl-validation/

"IMPORTANT: Development of the Calomel SSL Validation addon has been
put on hold. Mozilla is disabling XUL and XPCOM in Firefox which means
the addon is no longer able to query the current browser tab for the
TLS certificate and cipher information."

Sure, you can just manually inspect the details of any given site's
certificate and TLS config, but Calomel's icon and grading system made
it much easier to notice when some important site had a bad config. :/
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

[Tom Hughes]

On 13/10/17 16:48, Adam Williamson wrote:

On Fri, 2017-10-13 at 15:56 +0100, Tom Hughes wrote:


Cookie Monster

Seemed to have been removed from AMO and no obvious replacement.


I use(d) Self Destructing Cookies, but the page for that one says it's
not being rewritten as a webextension and will be abandoned:

https://addons.mozilla.org/EN-US/firefox/addon/self-destructing-cookies/

"This add-on is no longer maintained. It is incompatible with Firefox
55+ and this will never change. Also, it will not be rewritten as a
WebExtension."

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/cookie-autodelete/ seems
to be a new webextension along the same lines, I don't know how good /
safe it is or whether it does what you wanted from Cookie Monster.


Yes it's not quite the same thing but it might actually be an even 
better solution so I had my eye on that as a possible replacement.



NoSquint Plus

Last update yesterday but no mention of WE plans on AMO page
but Zoom Page WE is possible replacement.


I use this one too, it's useful for sites that don't play well with
hidpi, though those are becoming less common now. I imagine it may be
important for older / vision-impaired users, though.


I mostly just fine that some sites make weirdly small font choices ;-)

I actually use it in text-zoom mode rather than the default full-zoom mode.

Tom

--
Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu)
http://compton.nu/
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

[Adam Williamson]

On Fri, 2017-10-13 at 10:47 -0500, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> 
> Is everyone being over-dramatic (per usual)?

To take that personally for a minute, well, no, I don't believe I've
been over-dramatic at all. I've never suggested anything besides 'maybe
we should take a look at whether shipping Firefox 57 as fast as we
usually ship updates is the best idea', and that's all the FESCo ticket
I filed says. (My specific suggestion so far has been not to ship it
for a couple of weeks after upstream releases it, to see just how
common complaints turn out to be in widespread public use).

It's not my fault that people seem to have taken this off in weird
directions like "can we switch to ESR forever?!" or "can we maintain FF
56 until Fedora 27 EOL?!"
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

[Adam Williamson]

On Fri, 2017-10-13 at 08:44 -0700, Gerald B. Cox wrote:
> Adam, can you please use the other thread.  This discussion has gotten way
> off topic.  The other thread I opened is Fx 57 Release Issues.

I think that ship sailed long ago, I'm afraid. I can't really 'move' a
reply to the other thread, email doesn't work that way.
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

[Adam Williamson]

On Fri, 2017-10-13 at 15:56 +0100, Tom Hughes wrote:
> On 13/10/17 15:26, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> 
> > Sure, that's what everybody knows. But without going from generalities
> > to details of a specific extension, we're just speculating idly.
> 
> So lets do a little review of the things I have installed in one of my 
> firefox instances that aren't currently firefox 57 compatible... This is 
> after I've dumped some rarely used things that I decided were unlikely 
> to get an update.
> 
> Cookie Monster
> 
>Seemed to have been removed from AMO and no obvious replacement.

I use(d) Self Destructing Cookies, but the page for that one says it's
not being rewritten as a webextension and will be abandoned:

https://addons.mozilla.org/EN-US/firefox/addon/self-destructing-cookies/

"This add-on is no longer maintained. It is incompatible with Firefox
55+ and this will never change. Also, it will not be rewritten as a
WebExtension."

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/cookie-autodelete/ seems
to be a new webextension along the same lines, I don't know how good /
safe it is or whether it does what you wanted from Cookie Monster.

> NoSquint Plus
> 
>Last update yesterday but no mention of WE plans on AMO page
>but Zoom Page WE is possible replacement.

I use this one too, it's useful for sites that don't play well with
hidpi, though those are becoming less common now. I imagine it may be
important for older / vision-impaired users, though.

> Tab Groups
> 
>Author has stated (in a long rant) that he is not going to port
>to WE and that in any case the APIs will probably always be too
>limited for it to be possible.

As this was previously a Firefox feature and the excuse when removing
it was "don't worry, it'll be available as an extension" this seems
like a rather important one!
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

[Michael Cronenworth]

On 10/13/2017 10:40 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:

We've chosen not to ship ESR in the past, AIUI, because we think our
target audiences generally prefer to get the main Firefox release
stream, they don't want the ESR stream. We could change that decision,
of course. I don't personally think a one-off ouch-y event like this
would entirely justify such a change, but it'd be interesting to know
if the Quantum stuff means a series of such ouch-y events might
potentially be coming to the main release stream.


Shipping ESR will just lead to fragmentation of the user base. Some will create a 
copr with the latest version.


Is everyone being over-dramatic (per usual)?

Does this update break the entire browser?

Could I make plenty more rhetorical questions?

If we're going to suggest shipping ESR we might as well stop shipping the latest 
kernel, too.


I can't believe I replied to this thread. :(
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

[Gerald B. Cox]

Adam, can you please use the other thread.  This discussion has gotten way
off topic.  The other thread I opened is Fx 57 Release Issues.

Thanks!

On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 8:40 AM, Adam Williamson  wrote:

> On Fri, 2017-10-13 at 12:29 +0100, Peter Oliver wrote:
> > On Thu, 12 Oct 2017, Adam Williamson wrote:
> >
> > > it sounds like downgrading from 56 to 52
> > > (the most recent ESR), aside from the epoch bump it'd require on our
> > > side, is not straightforward (it seems there were profile changes
> > > between 56 and 52).
> >
> > Ouch.
> >
> > Is now a good time to think about how we could try to avoid getting into
> a similar situation again in the future?
> >
> > I see that Firefox ESR releases are supported for one year plus twelve
> weeks (https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/organizations/faq/).  For
> Fedora 27, would it be safer to include Firefox 57 and 58, but then stick
> with Firefox 59 ESR from March onwards?
>
> We've chosen not to ship ESR in the past, AIUI, because we think our
> target audiences generally prefer to get the main Firefox release
> stream, they don't want the ESR stream. We could change that decision,
> of course. I don't personally think a one-off ouch-y event like this
> would entirely justify such a change, but it'd be interesting to know
> if the Quantum stuff means a series of such ouch-y events might
> potentially be coming to the main release stream.
> --
> Adam Williamson
> Fedora QA Community Monkey
> IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
> http://www.happyassassin.net
> ___
> devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
>
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

[Adam Williamson]

On Fri, 2017-10-13 at 12:29 +0100, Peter Oliver wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Oct 2017, Adam Williamson wrote:
> 
> > it sounds like downgrading from 56 to 52
> > (the most recent ESR), aside from the epoch bump it'd require on our
> > side, is not straightforward (it seems there were profile changes
> > between 56 and 52).
> 
> Ouch.
> 
> Is now a good time to think about how we could try to avoid getting into a 
> similar situation again in the future?
> 
> I see that Firefox ESR releases are supported for one year plus twelve weeks 
> (https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/organizations/faq/).  For Fedora 27, 
> would it be safer to include Firefox 57 and 58, but then stick with Firefox 
> 59 ESR from March onwards?

We've chosen not to ship ESR in the past, AIUI, because we think our
target audiences generally prefer to get the main Firefox release
stream, they don't want the ESR stream. We could change that decision,
of course. I don't personally think a one-off ouch-y event like this
would entirely justify such a change, but it'd be interesting to know
if the Quantum stuff means a series of such ouch-y events might
potentially be coming to the main release stream.
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

[Alexander Ploumistos]

On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 6:31 PM, Gerald B. Cox  wrote:
> Please use the thread Fx 57 Release Issues.  This discussion isn't about the
> use of the updates-testing repository for non-update software.

Sure, sorry for the digression.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

[Gerald B. Cox]

Please use the thread Fx 57 Release Issues.  This discussion isn't about
the use of the updates-testing repository for non-update software.

On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 8:23 AM, Alexander Ploumistos <
alex.ploumis...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 6:04 PM, Athos Ribeiro 
> wrote:
> > I maintain a small extension to toggle proxy configurations […]
>
> Hi Athos,
> Does noturno support proxy authentication by any chance ;) ?
> ___
> devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
>
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

[Alexander Ploumistos]

On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 6:04 PM, Athos Ribeiro  wrote:
> I maintain a small extension to toggle proxy configurations […]

Hi Athos,
Does noturno support proxy authentication by any chance ;) ?
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

[Athos Ribeiro]

On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 01:14:50PM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> All the energy devoted to this thread would imho be better spent on
> trying to encourage the authors of popular extensions to update to the
> new model, or trying to find alternatives that work with FF57+.
> Personally, I now have µBlock Origin, Gnome Shell Integration, and
> uMatrix as a replacement for noScript, and that covers my basic needs.
> The rest I can live without. I'd encourage everybody else to make similar
> reckoning, and identify the missing _essential_ extensions, and
> concentrate on them.

+1

Although some extensions are hopeless, as pointed out earlier in the
thread. I maintain a small extension to toggle proxy configurations and
had to completely rewrite it to support webextensions and even though it
still carries the same name/branding, it is a completely different
extension regarding its features (still better than letting users down).
I feel sorry for people who put a lot of effort maintaining their
extensions who now have to either abandon them and their users or
completely rewrite their extensions.

-- 
Athos Ribeiro

http://www.ime.usp.br/~athoscr
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

[Tom Hughes]

On 13/10/17 15:26, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:


Sure, that's what everybody knows. But without going from generalities
to details of a specific extension, we're just speculating idly.


So lets do a little review of the things I have installed in one of my 
firefox instances that aren't currently firefox 57 compatible... This is 
after I've dumped some rarely used things that I decided were unlikely 
to get an update.


Cookie Monster

  Seemed to have been removed from AMO and no obvious replacement.

Download Manager (S3)

  Author reports it can't be ported due to lack of required APIs and
  the same presumably applies to the various similar extensions none
  of which show any sign of being ported. There are bugs open with
  mozilla for providing a toolbar API for this but they're not
  saying much other than "on the roadmap" which could mean anything.

Extension List Dumper 2

  Last update in January, no sign of an update or of an obvious
  replacement but only used occasionally.

NoScript

  Supposedly getting a five-to-midnight fix and other options are
  available if that doesn't happen.

NoSquint Plus

  Last update yesterday but no mention of WE plans on AMO page
  but Zoom Page WE is possible replacement.

pdfit

  Ancient and only in use because the (better) extension I used
  to use to save as PDF stopped working. Will likely replace with
  screenshots once that has "whole page" mode working.

Saved Password Editor

  Needs new APIs which are supposedly in the works but won't be
  available for 57 at least.

Tab Groups

  Author has stated (in a long rant) that he is not going to port
  to WE and that in any case the APIs will probably always be too
  limited for it to be possible.

View Cookies

  Last updated nearly two years ago with no signs of life and no
  obvious replacement.

Tom

--
Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu)
http://compton.nu/
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

[Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek]

On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 02:55:37PM +0100, Peter Oliver wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Oct 2017, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> 
> >All the energy devoted to this thread would imho be better spent on
> >trying to encourage the authors of popular extensions to update to the
> >new model,
> 
> My understanding is that the new API lacks capabilities needed to
> make some extensions possible.  Mozilla may or may not reimplement
> some of these functionalities in the future, but, for the time
> being, there’s little that the authors of such extensions can do.

Sure, that's what everybody knows. But without going from generalities
to details of a specific extension, we're just speculating idly.

Zbyszek
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

[Peter Oliver]

On Fri, 13 Oct 2017, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:


All the energy devoted to this thread would imho be better spent on
trying to encourage the authors of popular extensions to update to the
new model,


My understanding is that the new API lacks capabilities needed to make some 
extensions possible.  Mozilla may or may not reimplement some of these 
functionalities in the future, but, for the time being, there’s little that the 
authors of such extensions can do.

--
Peter Oliver___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

[Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek]

On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 02:21:42PM +0200, Martin Stransky wrote:
> On 10/13/2017 01:29 PM, Peter Oliver wrote:
> >On Thu, 12 Oct 2017, Adam Williamson wrote:
> >
> >>it sounds like downgrading from 56 to 52
> >>(the most recent ESR), aside from the epoch bump it'd require on our
> >>side, is not straightforward (it seems there were profile changes
> >>between 56 and 52).
> >
> >Ouch.
> >
> >Is now a good time to think about how we could try to avoid
> >getting into a similar situation again in the future?
> >
> >I see that Firefox ESR releases are supported for one year plus
> >twelve weeks
> >(https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/organizations/faq/).  For
> >Fedora 27, would it be safer to include Firefox 57 and 58, but
> >then stick with Firefox 59 ESR from March onwards?
> Fedora can certainly ship ESR line but nobody wants to package/maintain it.
... and nobody even seems to want to use it :)

I think that we cannot ignore or escape the fact that we can't hold
back Firefox updates. Firefox 57 seems _very_ nice, but even if it
wasn't, we just don't have the manpower to hold onto old Firefox
versions for a long time. Lifetime of Fedora 27 is 13 or 14 months
after the final release of FF57, and by the end of that period FF56 is
going to be quite dated, and FF52 ESR even more so.

All the energy devoted to this thread would imho be better spent on
trying to encourage the authors of popular extensions to update to the
new model, or trying to find alternatives that work with FF57+.
Personally, I now have µBlock Origin, Gnome Shell Integration, and
uMatrix as a replacement for noScript, and that covers my basic needs.
The rest I can live without. I'd encourage everybody else to make similar
reckoning, and identify the missing _essential_ extensions, and
concentrate on them.

Zbyszek
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

[Martin Stransky]

On 10/13/2017 01:29 PM, Peter Oliver wrote:

On Thu, 12 Oct 2017, Adam Williamson wrote:


it sounds like downgrading from 56 to 52
(the most recent ESR), aside from the epoch bump it'd require on our
side, is not straightforward (it seems there were profile changes
between 56 and 52).


Ouch.

Is now a good time to think about how we could try to avoid getting into 
a similar situation again in the future?


I see that Firefox ESR releases are supported for one year plus twelve 
weeks (https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/organizations/faq/).  For 
Fedora 27, would it be safer to include Firefox 57 and 58, but then 
stick with Firefox 59 ESR from March onwards?




Fedora can certainly ship ESR line but nobody wants to package/maintain it.

ma.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

[Naheem Zaffar]

Another option could be to ship Fedora 27 with a Firefox 57 prerelease
version. This will stop breakage of extensions 2 weeks after Fedora 27
ships (and shipped extensions can be moved to web extension version).

On 13 Oct 2017 12:31 pm, "Peter Oliver" <
lists.fedoraproject@mavit.org.uk> wrote:

> On Thu, 12 Oct 2017, Adam Williamson wrote:
>
> it sounds like downgrading from 56 to 52
>> (the most recent ESR), aside from the epoch bump it'd require on our
>> side, is not straightforward (it seems there were profile changes
>> between 56 and 52).
>>
>
> Ouch.
>
> Is now a good time to think about how we could try to avoid getting into a
> similar situation again in the future?
>
> I see that Firefox ESR releases are supported for one year plus twelve
> weeks (https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/organizations/faq/).  For
> Fedora 27, would it be safer to include Firefox 57 and 58, but then stick
> with Firefox 59 ESR from March onwards?
>
> --
> Peter Oliver
> ___
> devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
>
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

[Peter Oliver]

On Thu, 12 Oct 2017, Adam Williamson wrote:


it sounds like downgrading from 56 to 52
(the most recent ESR), aside from the epoch bump it'd require on our
side, is not straightforward (it seems there were profile changes
between 56 and 52).


Ouch.

Is now a good time to think about how we could try to avoid getting into a 
similar situation again in the future?

I see that Firefox ESR releases are supported for one year plus twelve weeks 
(https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/organizations/faq/).  For Fedora 27, 
would it be safer to include Firefox 57 and 58, but then stick with Firefox 59 
ESR from March onwards?

--
Peter Oliver
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

[Adam Williamson]

On Thu, 2017-10-12 at 22:57 +0100, Tom Hughes wrote:
> 
> The biggest issues are NoScript (which is supposedly coming) and Cookie 
> Monster (which seems to be hopeless) but there are plenty of others.

As someone else mentioned, uMatrix is an alternative (in many ways
superior) to Noscript, and seems to have a web extension version
available.
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

[Tom Hughes]

On 12/10/17 22:48, John Florian wrote:

On Thu, 2017-10-12 at 19:54 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:

On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 09:05:33AM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:

It's true that a number of older extensions will not work.


Well, looking at the most popular extensions:

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-GB/firefox/extensions/?sort=users

hardly any of them are parked as "compatible with firefox 57+".
I'm counting 5/20 on the first page linked there, and 4/20
on the first page of the highest rated extensions.

So I stand by my slightly modified claim that installing this update
will disable most of your extensions.


I think you might be surprised how many *new* WebExtension alternatives
are available, but they are not yet popular when competing against the
*old* standbys.  IMHO, Mozilla could have done better with epoch
weighting, displaying the legacy tags far earlier -- those are really
quite recent.  I was also annoyed that I couldn't easily limit my
search for non-legacy extensions when using firefox < 57.


I have been actively looking for replacements for the various extensions 
that I use for the last couple of releases and so far only about 50% or 
so have anything even vaguely equivalent with only weeks left to be 
before the extensionpocalypse hits.


The biggest issues are NoScript (which is supposedly coming) and Cookie 
Monster (which seems to be hopeless) but there are plenty of others.


Tom

--
Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu)
http://compton.nu/
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

[John Florian]

On Thu, 2017-10-12 at 19:54 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 09:05:33AM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > It's true that a number of older extensions will not work.
> 
> Well, looking at the most popular extensions:
> 
> https://addons.mozilla.org/en-GB/firefox/extensions/?sort=users
> 
> hardly any of them are parked as "compatible with firefox 57+".
> I'm counting 5/20 on the first page linked there, and 4/20
> on the first page of the highest rated extensions.
> 
> So I stand by my slightly modified claim that installing this update
> will disable most of your extensions.

I think you might be surprised how many *new* WebExtension alternatives
are available, but they are not yet popular when competing against the
*old* standbys.  IMHO, Mozilla could have done better with epoch
weighting, displaying the legacy tags far earlier -- those are really
quite recent.  I was also annoyed that I couldn't easily limit my
search for non-legacy extensions when using firefox < 57.

I learned about this incompatibility while dealing with an unrelated
issue in VimFx several months ago and was sad to learn that extension
would not be ported given the differences and the amount of time it
would require.  I began a panic search for replacements because of how
utterly dependent I am on some.  I think many popular extensions are
going to fall into this category if they're not backed by companies or
enthusiasts with lots of time.

So I'm happily testing from u-t now so I can convince myself everything
is going to be alright.  I'm not going to judge whether this via u-t
was correct or not; I've heard great arguments while perched atop of
the fence.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

[Adam Williamson]

On Thu, 2017-10-12 at 22:37 +0200, nicolas.mail...@laposte.net wrote:
> 
> - Mail original -
> De: "Adam Williamson" 
> 
> > Yes, but we're a *distributor*. It's our job to mediate change for our
> > users, not to just pass it along and wash our hands of it by saying
> > upstream was telling them about it.
> 
> Sure, and Fedora had the choice of
> - shipping Firefox
> - shipping Firefox ESR
> - shipping Firefox and Firefox ESR
> 
> And the good time to make this choice was at ESR branching, and
> Mozilla communicated a very detailed roadmap beforehand to help
> distributors and anyone else that ships a desktop that includes
> Firefox to make the best choice for their users. It is already
> communicating on the changes that will occur at the next branch point
> next year BTW.

You may well have a point, but the fact is, that didn't happen, and we
don't have a time machine handy. So it's a good note for the future,
but it doesn't really help us resolve this current situation. We still
have choices about what we can *actually* do *right now* given that we
didn't do what you suggested.
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

[nicolas . mailhot]

- Mail original -
De: "Adam Williamson" 

> Yes, but we're a *distributor*. It's our job to mediate change for our
> users, not to just pass it along and wash our hands of it by saying
> upstream was telling them about it.

Sure, and Fedora had the choice of
- shipping Firefox
- shipping Firefox ESR
- shipping Firefox and Firefox ESR

And the good time to make this choice was at ESR branching, and Mozilla 
communicated a very detailed roadmap beforehand to help distributors and anyone 
else that ships a desktop that includes Firefox to make the best choice for 
their users. It is already communicating on the changes that will occur at the 
next branch point next year BTW.

We understand the concept of branching points at Fedora, right? Maybe there 
needs to be less focus on new development models and how to enable various 
non-free binaries or non-free cloud services, and more thought about the 
classical release engineering actual big software projects use, more thought 
about the browser which is the central part of any internet-oriented desktop 
(yes that was cheap on my part but really, people should take a break and get 
some perspective, focus is good but self absorption is not, it only took me 5 
years in start up + some more desintoxication time to learn it, the first 
person one is overselling to is always oneself).

Kind regards,

-- 
Nicolas Mailhot
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

[Adam Williamson]

On Thu, 2017-10-12 at 21:22 +0200, nicolas.mail...@laposte.net wrote:
> De: "Adam Williamson" 
> 
> > I don't believe anyone
> > outside of Firefox enthusiasts and the package maintainer were even
> > aware there was an issue to discuss.
> 
> The last 2 or 3 Firefox releases have been adding warnings (and
> ramping them up) in the Firefox extension panel.

...which you really have no reason to look at unless you're doing
something specific in it, in which case you're focusing on that
specific thing.

Looking at it right now, the extensions which aren't compatible with
F57 have a yellow 'LEGACY' tag on them, but that's all. Clicking on it
takes you to a page with an explanation, but I only just discovered
that; it's not obvious and there's no explanation on the addons page
itself of what 'LEGACY' means.

> 
> I even had a specific presentation @work on Firefox ESR and what it
> means in terms of compatibility breakage a few months ago, even
> though we are not an IT company and would be classified as extremely
> conservative, not too FLOSS-friendly, late to change and sold out to
> Microsoft on the desktop by outsiders (the reality is much more
> nuanced and we have a large Firefox deployment internally). God knows
> our desktop people learnt to anticipate browser breakage after years
> of trying to standardize on IE, before giving up and authorizing
> Firefox too. 

Yes, but we're a *distributor*. It's our job to mediate change for our
users, not to just pass it along and wash our hands of it by saying
upstream was telling them about it.
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

[nicolas . mailhot]

De: "Adam Williamson" 

> I don't believe anyone
> outside of Firefox enthusiasts and the package maintainer were even
> aware there was an issue to discuss.

The last 2 or 3 Firefox releases have been adding warnings (and ramping them 
up) in the Firefox extension panel.

I even had a specific presentation @work on Firefox ESR and what it means in 
terms of compatibility breakage a few months ago, even though we are not an IT 
company and would be classified as extremely conservative, not too 
FLOSS-friendly, late to change and sold out to Microsoft on the desktop by 
outsiders (the reality is much more nuanced and we have a large Firefox 
deployment internally). God knows our desktop people learnt to anticipate 
browser breakage after years of trying to standardize on IE, before giving up 
and authorizing Firefox too. 

-- 
Nicolas Mailhot
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

[Adam Williamson]

On Thu, 2017-10-12 at 20:42 +0200, nicolas.mail...@laposte.net wrote:
> If Fedora is getting cold feet at the last minute 

I'd suggest that this is an inaccurate characterization of the issue. I
don't believe that 'Fedora' as an entity had even *considered* this
situation until the start of this thread. It's not a case that we'd
considered and specifically committed to delivering Firefox 57 shortly
after release and are now changing our minds; I don't believe anyone
outside of Firefox enthusiasts and the package maintainer were even
aware there was an issue to discuss.
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

[Adam Williamson]

On Thu, 2017-10-12 at 11:22 -0700, stan wrote:
> Mozilla has been warning about this for over a year in their
> development version (nightly), so it shouldn't come as a surprise.

For me at least, it is a surprise. I had not heard about this until
this mailing list thread.

I'm sure it's not a surprise for people who are specifically interested
in Mozilla / Firefox news; it does seem to have been discussed there
for a long them. But I'm not. I just use Firefox. I don't run betas, I
don't run nightlies, I don't read Firefox-specific news sites etc. I
doubt I'm particularly unusual among Fedora users.
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

[nicolas . mailhot]

Also I would be *very* surprised if network or website operators that rely on 
stuff Mozilla is obsoleting didn't start testing for ESR in the user-agent to 
adopt specific behaviour, if not this year then next one's when Mozilla kills 
plugins (Yes they're not supposed to. When did that stop them? Especially 
inside corporation networks or on internal websites.)

That would leave any Firefox Fedora user in a very bad spot, since the test is 
unlikely to take "ESR-but-not-really" cases into account

-- 
Nicolas Mailhot
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

[Gerald B. Cox]

On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 11:42 AM,  wrote:

>
>
> If Fedora is getting cold feet at the last minute the best solution would
> be to package ESR separately and make it available for people that don't
> really want to be "First". It's probable Mozilla will use the next ESR
> branching for similar invasive changes anyway now it's been set up.
>
> And yes downgrading from current to ESR is going to cause breakage, but
> it's a bit late to change gears without breakage one way or another.
> Consistent breakage with upstream is way better than Fedora-specific
> breakage
>
> This thread has changed from my original intent.  The reported issue was
using the updates-testing process as a vehicle for testing software not
intended to be pushed to stable.  I opened a FESCo ticket on the issue
here:  https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/1782

Adam has opened a FESCo ticket on a separate topic, regarding delaying the
release of Fx 57 in Fedora.  That ticket is here:
https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/1783

Let''s limit this thread to the topic of updates-testing.

If people want to discuss the rationale and impact of delaying Fx 57 in
Fedora, please open another topic.

Not trying to be argumentative, but at least for me multiple topics in the
same thread cause a loss of focus on the reported issue.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

[Richard W.M. Jones]

On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 09:05:33AM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> It's true that a number of older extensions will not work.

Well, looking at the most popular extensions:

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-GB/firefox/extensions/?sort=users

hardly any of them are parked as "compatible with firefox 57+".
I'm counting 5/20 on the first page linked there, and 4/20
on the first page of the highest rated extensions.

So I stand by my slightly modified claim that installing this update
will disable most of your extensions.

Rich.

-- 
Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones
Read my programming and virtualization blog: http://rwmj.wordpress.com
virt-top is 'top' for virtual machines.  Tiny program with many
powerful monitoring features, net stats, disk stats, logging, etc.
http://people.redhat.com/~rjones/virt-top
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

[nicolas . mailhot]

- Mail original -
De: "Matthew Miller" 
> Also we might be able to forward-port patches from the latest ESR.

Though that would not be overly nice to upstream. They took the pain of 
creating, documenting and supporting two specific update streams to coordinate 
this change, I'm quite sure they would be very cross with Fedora if it invented 
some sort of mongrel update path at the last minute (besides how would it work 
for extensions, they rely on the Firefox version having a specific meaning, are 
we going to requalify all the existing extension universe?).

If Fedora is getting cold feet at the last minute the best solution would be to 
package ESR separately and make it available for people that don't really want 
to be "First". It's probable Mozilla will use the next ESR branching for 
similar invasive changes anyway now it's been set up.

And yes downgrading from current to ESR is going to cause breakage, but it's a 
bit late to change gears without breakage one way or another. Consistent 
breakage with upstream is way better than Fedora-specific breakage

At least, IMHO

Regards,

-- 
Nicolas Mailhot
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

[Thomas Daede]

On 10/12/2017 10:52 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> I think that may not realistically be possible, though, as 56 is not
> being made an ESR, AFAICT, and it sounds like downgrading from 56 to 52
>  (the most recent ESR), aside from the epoch bump it'd require on our
> side, is not straightforward (it seems there were profile changes
> between 56 and 52).

I should note that there are also backwards incompatible profile changes
from 57 to 56.

Backporting security fixes is definitely an option. I don't know of any
current security fixes that need to be backported (and because 57 isn't
released yet, severe ones will be backported to 56 point releases by
upstream), but if you lock F26 or F27 to 56, you'll have to be
backporting for 6 months or a year, respectively.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

[stan]

On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 09:05:33 -0700
Kevin Fenzi  wrote:

> On 10/12/2017 01:08 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > In practical terms, FF57 disables all extensions.  
> 
> I think thats a bit overstated. I'm running FF57 here with a bunch of
> extensions that work with it.

I agree with this.  I run nightly in addition to the fedora version of
firefox, and I have found that some of my dearly loved extensions have
new versions.  And where not, someone has often written a replacement
for the new interface.  I found such extensions by searching in the
add-ons pages at Mozilla. My main lack is that I haven't found a
replacement for antvideodownloader or dwhelper yet (video downloaders).

That said, from reading Mozilla forums, it seems that the new web
extension interface is more restricted than the XUL interface it is
replacing, and certain functionality can't be replaced. Which means
that some current XUL extensions can never be recreated as a web
extension.  The reason this was done is to enhance security.  So, it is
the old trade-off; security versus ease of use.

I don't understand the losses well enough to know whether some of the
things I like to do in firefox with extensions can be replicated or
not.  I've thought about keeping an older version of firefox around
that can use the old extensions for special cases.

Mozilla has been warning about this for over a year in their
development version (nightly), so it shouldn't come as a surprise.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

[Matthew Miller]

On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 10:52:52AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> However, I don't think this means we MUST ship 57. Talking about
> 'security backports' in the abstract is all well and good, but no-one
> even seems to have stated yet that there *are* any important security
> fixes in 57. Even if there are, we *can* look at the feasibility of
> backporting them ourselves (or in co-ordination with other
> distributors, who may well be in the same position as us). It's
> something we do for many other packages, after all; it's not
> impossible.

Also we might be able to forward-port patches from the latest ESR.

-- 
Matthew Miller

Fedora Project Leader
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

[Adam Williamson]

On Thu, 2017-10-12 at 10:16 -0700, Thomas Daede wrote:
> On 10/12/2017 02:54 AM, Till Hofmann wrote:
> > Yes, but that wasn't branded as all-new, better-than-ever Firefox (which
> > it is), that intentionally breaks stuff which is directly visible by the
> > end-user. An update that breaks the majority of extensions is very hard
> > to sell for a stable release, as much as I love the new Firefox.
> 
> Special-casing a normal Firefox release would be a bad idea as they
> don't receive security backports. Switching Fedora to ESR-only would be
> the only safe way to accomplish this.

I think that may not realistically be possible, though, as 56 is not
being made an ESR, AFAICT, and it sounds like downgrading from 56 to 52
 (the most recent ESR), aside from the epoch bump it'd require on our
side, is not straightforward (it seems there were profile changes
between 56 and 52).

However, I don't think this means we MUST ship 57. Talking about
'security backports' in the abstract is all well and good, but no-one
even seems to have stated yet that there *are* any important security
fixes in 57. Even if there are, we *can* look at the feasibility of
backporting them ourselves (or in co-ordination with other
distributors, who may well be in the same position as us). It's
something we do for many other packages, after all; it's not
impossible.
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

[Thomas Daede]

On 10/12/2017 02:54 AM, Till Hofmann wrote:
> Yes, but that wasn't branded as all-new, better-than-ever Firefox (which
> it is), that intentionally breaks stuff which is directly visible by the
> end-user. An update that breaks the majority of extensions is very hard
> to sell for a stable release, as much as I love the new Firefox.

Special-casing a normal Firefox release would be a bad idea as they
don't receive security backports. Switching Fedora to ESR-only would be
the only safe way to accomplish this.

(this is unrelated to whether it should have been pushed as Beta)
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

[Adam Williamson]

On Thu, 2017-10-12 at 05:35 -0700, Gerald B. Cox wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 12:33 AM, Reindl Harald 
> wrote:
> 
> > --- Comment #13 from Martin Stransky  ---
> > Sorry but the update stays there unless there's a general agreement it
> > should
> > be removed. If you feel so please file FESCo ticket for that.
> > 
> 
> I've opened a FESCo ticket:  https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/1782
> 
> I've asked them to define the term "updates-testing".  Does it mean the
> testing of updates or can it also be used to test software that is not an
> update.

I've opened another:

https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/1783

specifically for the question of whether it's appropriate to push
Firefox 57 out as a Fedora update (especially to stable releases), at
least at first.
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

[Kevin Fenzi]

On 10/12/2017 01:08 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> In practical terms, FF57 disables all extensions.

I think thats a bit overstated. I'm running FF57 here with a bunch of
extensions that work with it.

It's true that a number of older extensions will not work.

One thing to look at is to go to the extensions home page and look at
the very bottom and see if it has a developer channel. Enabling that
will sometimes give you a webextension supported version.

> 
> I had forgotten how unusable the web has become without NoScript ...

Might give uMatrix a try?

> Anyway, I wouldn't advise anyone else to update to this version
> if you use extensions at all.

Indeed, but note that you might want to upgrade and check your
extensions and see what your state is before Nov...

kevin




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: The Code of Conduct applies to all Fedora participation [was Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?]

[Josh Boyer]

On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 10:15 AM, Matthew Miller
 wrote:
> Wrong. The Code of Conduct applies to all participation in Fedora.
>
> As I understand the history, your messages are on moderation because
> ... well, you keep doing this. That's not okay. If you had sent this
> just to me privately as a way of blowing off steam, I might try to
> personally talk you down. That's okay sometimes; everyone gets
> frustrated. But, anticipation that your message will be rejected by a
> moderator is no excuse.

I agree 100% with Matthew.  I would go further and suggest that if an
individual is already on moderation, they should be seriously
considering the tone of every message they send to make sure it
adheres to the Code of Conduct.  To do otherwise demonstrates a
complete lack of respect for the CoC and the Fedora community itself.

josh

> On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 03:59:55PM +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
>> since my mails to the devel list are rejcted anyways the code of
>> conduct no longer applies to me
>>
>> Am 12.10.2017 um 15:51 schrieb Matthew Miller:
>> >
>> >Harald, you've had plenty of warnings. When you go off like this, it
>> >stops the conversation from being about the policies and problems.
>> >Don't do that. It is not productive or constructive. At the very, very
>> >minimum, it is a terrible way to get the results you want. But it is
>> >also against the Fedora Code of Conduct, which you must abide by when
>> >participating in Fedora.
>> >
>> >I know there is other stuff going on in that thread, but that is long
>> >and this is in my personal inbox, so it's getting first attention.
>> >
>> >
>> >On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 09:33:21AM +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
>> >>IT IS NOT because the maintainer acts like a moron
>> >>
>> >>https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1500806#c13
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>--- Comment #13 from Martin Stransky  ---
>> >>Sorry but the update stays there unless there's a general agreement
>> >>it should
>> >>be removed. If you feel so please file FESCo ticket for that.
>> >>
>> >>i slowly get tired enough to disable updates-testing at all and do
>> >>what you want guys in the future, have fun without testers which
>> >>means you maintainers need to do more quality work alltogether when
>> >>you lose your last resort between build something and the big
>> >>userbase
>> >>
>> >>Am 12.10.2017 um 02:36 schrieb Adam Williamson:
>> >>>On Wed, 2017-10-11 at 17:13 -0700, Gerald B. Cox wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 12:08 PM, Martin Stransky 
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >I'm surprised that people use updates-testing for stable/production
>> >machines, have problem with handling the update and act like newbies. If
>> >you can't handle that, don't use that. Fedora is really a bleeding edge 
>> >so
>> >don't complain you get new software with new features - even as testing
>> >only :)
>> >
>> >Where is Matthew Miller when you need him?  No one said anything about
>> 
>> using updates-testing for stable/productioin machines.  And the fact that
>> you're implying that Fedora itself is bleeding edge and not really suited
>> for production raises a huge red flag.
>> 
>> i have no doubt when this whole situation is reviewed logical minds will
>> prevail, but in the meantime you've taken advantage of a loophole.
>> Congratulations.
>> >>>
>> >>>I think you're getting a bit needlessly confrontational at this point.
>> >>>The issue's been sufficiently well raised now. Let's try to move
>> >>>forward productively from here...
>>
>
> --
> Matthew Miller
> 
> Fedora Project Leader
> ___
> devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

The Code of Conduct applies to all Fedora participation [was Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?]

[Matthew Miller]

Wrong. The Code of Conduct applies to all participation in Fedora.

As I understand the history, your messages are on moderation because
... well, you keep doing this. That's not okay. If you had sent this
just to me privately as a way of blowing off steam, I might try to
personally talk you down. That's okay sometimes; everyone gets
frustrated. But, anticipation that your message will be rejected by a
moderator is no excuse.


On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 03:59:55PM +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
> since my mails to the devel list are rejcted anyways the code of
> conduct no longer applies to me
> 
> Am 12.10.2017 um 15:51 schrieb Matthew Miller:
> >
> >Harald, you've had plenty of warnings. When you go off like this, it
> >stops the conversation from being about the policies and problems.
> >Don't do that. It is not productive or constructive. At the very, very
> >minimum, it is a terrible way to get the results you want. But it is
> >also against the Fedora Code of Conduct, which you must abide by when
> >participating in Fedora.
> >
> >I know there is other stuff going on in that thread, but that is long
> >and this is in my personal inbox, so it's getting first attention.
> >
> >
> >On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 09:33:21AM +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
> >>IT IS NOT because the maintainer acts like a moron
> >>
> >>https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1500806#c13
> >>
> >>
> >>--- Comment #13 from Martin Stransky  ---
> >>Sorry but the update stays there unless there's a general agreement
> >>it should
> >>be removed. If you feel so please file FESCo ticket for that.
> >>
> >>i slowly get tired enough to disable updates-testing at all and do
> >>what you want guys in the future, have fun without testers which
> >>means you maintainers need to do more quality work alltogether when
> >>you lose your last resort between build something and the big
> >>userbase
> >>
> >>Am 12.10.2017 um 02:36 schrieb Adam Williamson:
> >>>On Wed, 2017-10-11 at 17:13 -0700, Gerald B. Cox wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 12:08 PM, Martin Stransky 
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >I'm surprised that people use updates-testing for stable/production
> >machines, have problem with handling the update and act like newbies. If
> >you can't handle that, don't use that. Fedora is really a bleeding edge 
> >so
> >don't complain you get new software with new features - even as testing
> >only :)
> >
> >Where is Matthew Miller when you need him?  No one said anything about
> 
> using updates-testing for stable/productioin machines.  And the fact that
> you're implying that Fedora itself is bleeding edge and not really suited
> for production raises a huge red flag.
> 
> i have no doubt when this whole situation is reviewed logical minds will
> prevail, but in the meantime you've taken advantage of a loophole.
> Congratulations.
> >>>
> >>>I think you're getting a bit needlessly confrontational at this point.
> >>>The issue's been sufficiently well raised now. Let's try to move
> >>>forward productively from here...
> 

-- 
Matthew Miller

Fedora Project Leader
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

[Matthew Miller]

Harald, you've had plenty of warnings. When you go off like this, it
stops the conversation from being about the policies and problems.
Don't do that. It is not productive or constructive. At the very, very
minimum, it is a terrible way to get the results you want. But it is
also against the Fedora Code of Conduct, which you must abide by when
participating in Fedora.

I know there is other stuff going on in that thread, but that is long
and this is in my personal inbox, so it's getting first attention. 


On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 09:33:21AM +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
> IT IS NOT because the maintainer acts like a moron
> 
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1500806#c13
> 
> 
> --- Comment #13 from Martin Stransky  ---
> Sorry but the update stays there unless there's a general agreement
> it should
> be removed. If you feel so please file FESCo ticket for that.
> 
> i slowly get tired enough to disable updates-testing at all and do
> what you want guys in the future, have fun without testers which
> means you maintainers need to do more quality work alltogether when
> you lose your last resort between build something and the big
> userbase
> 
> Am 12.10.2017 um 02:36 schrieb Adam Williamson:
> >On Wed, 2017-10-11 at 17:13 -0700, Gerald B. Cox wrote:
> >>On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 12:08 PM, Martin Stransky 
> >>wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>I'm surprised that people use updates-testing for stable/production
> >>>machines, have problem with handling the update and act like newbies. If
> >>>you can't handle that, don't use that. Fedora is really a bleeding edge so
> >>>don't complain you get new software with new features - even as testing
> >>>only :)
> >>>
> >>>Where is Matthew Miller when you need him?  No one said anything about
> >>
> >>using updates-testing for stable/productioin machines.  And the fact that
> >>you're implying that Fedora itself is bleeding edge and not really suited
> >>for production raises a huge red flag.
> >>
> >>i have no doubt when this whole situation is reviewed logical minds will
> >>prevail, but in the meantime you've taken advantage of a loophole.
> >>Congratulations.
> >
> >I think you're getting a bit needlessly confrontational at this point.
> >The issue's been sufficiently well raised now. Let's try to move
> >forward productively from here...
> 

-- 
Matthew Miller

Fedora Project Leader
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

[Gerald B. Cox]

On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 12:33 AM, Reindl Harald 
wrote:

> --- Comment #13 from Martin Stransky  ---
> Sorry but the update stays there unless there's a general agreement it
> should
> be removed. If you feel so please file FESCo ticket for that.
>

I've opened a FESCo ticket:  https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/1782

I've asked them to define the term "updates-testing".  Does it mean the
testing of updates or can it also be used to test software that is not an
update.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

[Till Hofmann]

On 10/12/2017 11:32 AM, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:

On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 11:22:52AM +0200, Till Hofmann wrote:

Actually, as a regular desktop user, I'd be surprised if I got the FF57 with
a regular update without upgrading to the latest Fedora release. I don't
think FF57 should be in F26 at all.


Looking at the updates in bodhi, F26 was release with firefox-52, so you already
upgraded a few times :)


Yes, but that wasn't branded as all-new, better-than-ever Firefox (which 
it is), that intentionally breaks stuff which is directly visible by the 
end-user. An update that breaks the majority of extensions is very hard 
to sell for a stable release, as much as I love the new Firefox.


From an admin POV, this will result in lots of users complaining about 
their broken browsers, and probably at the wrong time, because not 
scheduled by the admin.


Also, as someone else has already mentioned in this thread, this is not 
really in line with the updates policy. I'm not saying we shouldn't 
receive updates for Firefox, but I think it should get an exception, so 
everyone actually knows when and why Firefox gets (or doesn't get) updates.




On my side, I do like having the latest firefox, also on my old F25.


Me too, but I don't like my boss complaining about his broken web browser.

Regards,
Till
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

[Pierre-Yves Chibon]

On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 11:22:52AM +0200, Till Hofmann wrote:
> Actually, as a regular desktop user, I'd be surprised if I got the FF57 with
> a regular update without upgrading to the latest Fedora release. I don't
> think FF57 should be in F26 at all.

Looking at the updates in bodhi, F26 was release with firefox-52, so you already
upgraded a few times :)

On my side, I do like having the latest firefox, also on my old F25.


Pierre
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

[Till Hofmann]

On 10/11/2017 10:58 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:


I don't get the whole kerfuffle about FF57 being beta: F27 is in beta
now too, and it's the time to test what will be in the relased version,
and using a pre-release of a package seems to be a better way to do
this than using some old version that will be soon replaced.
If we had a different updates policy for Firefox in Fedora, things
would be different, but we don't.



FF57 was also pushed to F26 updates-testing. F26 is not beta but a 
stable release. I have updates-testing enabled on my main machine to 
find unexpected package breakages and give feedback about them, which is 
the whole purpose of updates-testing. If this breaks my main web browser 
(which could have been expected), I'll just disable updates-testing 
again. This means less testing of updates, which a lot of people 
(rightfully) complain about anyway. That's why I think such an update 
should not go into a stable release's updates-testing.


Actually, as a regular desktop user, I'd be surprised if I got the FF57 
with a regular update without upgrading to the latest Fedora release. I 
don't think FF57 should be in F26 at all.


Regards,
Till
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

[Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski]

On Thursday, 12 October 2017 at 10:56, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 10:48:45AM +0200, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski 
> wrote:
> > On Thursday, 12 October 2017 at 10:08, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > > In practical terms, FF57 disables all extensions.
> > > 
> > > I had forgotten how unusable the web has become without NoScript ...
> > 
> > Have you tested with the latest noscript? 5.1.1 claims to support Fx57
> > and is in updates-testing, too.
> 
> I didn't even know we shipped extensions in Fedora.

We do and it's a convenient way to have an extension installed for all
users at once.

> I installed mozilla-noscript-5.1.1-1.fc28.noarch and restarted firefox
> but it doesn't make any difference.  NoScript still shows up as a
> "Legacy" extension and isn't working.
> 
> Is there something you're supposed to do to enable it?

The about:config switch doesn't work in beta/release versions, as you
have discovered already. I'll update to 5.1.2 in F27 as soon as it's
released.

Regards,
Dominik
-- 
Fedora   https://getfedora.org  |  RPMFusion   http://rpmfusion.org
There should be a science of discontent. People need hard times and
oppression to develop psychic muscles.
-- from "Collected Sayings of Muad'Dib" by the Princess Irulan
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

[Richard W.M. Jones]

On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 10:53:18AM +0200, Martin Stransky wrote:
> On 10/12/2017 10:48 AM, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
> >On Thursday, 12 October 2017 at 10:08, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> >>In practical terms, FF57 disables all extensions.
> >>
> >>I had forgotten how unusable the web has become without NoScript ...
> >
> >Have you tested with the latest noscript? 5.1.1 claims to support Fx57
> >and is in updates-testing, too.
> 
> There's also "extensions.legacy.enabled" pref at about:config which
> can be flipped:
> 
> https://wiki.mozilla.org/Add-ons/Firefox57

It doesn't work in our version of Firefox.

Something to do with whether Firefox is built as a developer
version or a beta version.

Rich.

-- 
Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones
Read my programming and virtualization blog: http://rwmj.wordpress.com
virt-df lists disk usage of guests without needing to install any
software inside the virtual machine.  Supports Linux and Windows.
http://people.redhat.com/~rjones/virt-df/
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

[Richard W.M. Jones]

On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 10:48:45AM +0200, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
> On Thursday, 12 October 2017 at 10:08, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > In practical terms, FF57 disables all extensions.
> > 
> > I had forgotten how unusable the web has become without NoScript ...
> 
> Have you tested with the latest noscript? 5.1.1 claims to support Fx57
> and is in updates-testing, too.

I didn't even know we shipped extensions in Fedora.

I installed mozilla-noscript-5.1.1-1.fc28.noarch and restarted firefox
but it doesn't make any difference.  NoScript still shows up as a
"Legacy" extension and isn't working.

Is there something you're supposed to do to enable it?

Rich.

-- 
Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones
Read my programming and virtualization blog: http://rwmj.wordpress.com
virt-builder quickly builds VMs from scratch
http://libguestfs.org/virt-builder.1.html
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

[Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski]

On Thursday, 12 October 2017 at 10:44, Felix Schwarz wrote:
[...]
> However I know at least one somewhat popular addon (NoScript) which is planned
> to have a release just before the Firefox 27 release
> (https://noscript.net/getit#devel). So the push to F26 updates-testing really
> hurts some users more than necessary.

NoScript developers offer this useful tip on the page you linked:

IMPORTANT: if you're using Firefox 57 you'll need to open about:config
and turn the extensions.legacy.enabled preference to true, otherwise
the browser will refuse to install Noscript.
Furthermore, you need a "blueish" Firefox, either Firefox Developer
Edition or Nightly. The preference trick doesn't work in "orange"
Firefox (beta/release). NoScript is currently a Hybrid WebExtension,
and therefore won't install on Firefox 57 pre-releases without this
trick. Before Firefox 57 is released in the stable channel, a pure
WebExtension NoScript will be available an you'll be automatically
migrated to it.

*sigh*
This indeed means the release in Fedora should be coordinated at least
with all Firefox extensions package mainainers. Martin, have you
contacted all the extension maintainers directly to coordinate? If not,
please do so now.

Regards,
Dominik
-- 
Fedora   https://getfedora.org  |  RPMFusion   http://rpmfusion.org
There should be a science of discontent. People need hard times and
oppression to develop psychic muscles.
-- from "Collected Sayings of Muad'Dib" by the Princess Irulan
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

[Martin Stransky]

On 10/12/2017 10:48 AM, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:

On Thursday, 12 October 2017 at 10:08, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:

In practical terms, FF57 disables all extensions.

I had forgotten how unusable the web has become without NoScript ...


Have you tested with the latest noscript? 5.1.1 claims to support Fx57
and is in updates-testing, too.


There's also "extensions.legacy.enabled" pref at about:config which can 
be flipped:


https://wiki.mozilla.org/Add-ons/Firefox57

ma.


Regards,
Dominik


___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

[Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski]

On Thursday, 12 October 2017 at 10:08, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> In practical terms, FF57 disables all extensions.
> 
> I had forgotten how unusable the web has become without NoScript ...

Have you tested with the latest noscript? 5.1.1 claims to support Fx57
and is in updates-testing, too.

Regards,
Dominik
-- 
Fedora   https://getfedora.org  |  RPMFusion   http://rpmfusion.org
There should be a science of discontent. People need hard times and
oppression to develop psychic muscles.
-- from "Collected Sayings of Muad'Dib" by the Princess Irulan
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

[Felix Schwarz]

Am 11.10.2017 um 21:08 schrieb Martin Stransky:
> I believed that the update-testing repository is intended for testing and it's
> used by power users who can handle that, exclude the package from testing if
> needed, downgrade broken package and so on.
> 
> I'm surprised that people use updates-testing for stable/production machines,
> have problem with handling the update and act like newbies. If you can't
> handle that, don't use that. Fedora is really a bleeding edge so don't
> complain you get new software with new features - even as testing only :)
> 
> Also, I think your expectation about dramatic change of new extension
> availability for FF57 last month before the final release is false.

"dramatic change" seems a bit ... dramatic ;-)
However I know at least one somewhat popular addon (NoScript) which is planned
to have a release just before the Firefox 27 release
(https://noscript.net/getit#devel). So the push to F26 updates-testing really
hurts some users more than necessary.

Other than that I think Fedora maintainers worked hard to get away from the
perception of "unstable/bleeding edge distro" to a more "provides new software
but still reliable".

I think this is not about "having updates-testing enabled and not being able
to handle breakage" - in the end all the complaints came from users who can
"handle" the breakage. I'd like to echo other's concerns that I treat
"updates-testing" very similar to "updates" just with the additional caveat
that it might be a tad bit less tested.

Please let's keep it that way.

fs
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

[Richard W.M. Jones]

In practical terms, FF57 disables all extensions.

I had forgotten how unusable the web has become without NoScript ...

Anyway, I wouldn't advise anyone else to update to this version
if you use extensions at all.

Rich.

-- 
Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones
Read my programming and virtualization blog: http://rwmj.wordpress.com
virt-df lists disk usage of guests without needing to install any
software inside the virtual machine.  Supports Linux and Windows.
http://people.redhat.com/~rjones/virt-df/
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

[Martin Stransky]

On 10/11/2017 09:42 PM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:

[]


It is something we forget a lot.. but is a reason why older
maintainers of XYZ software (Mozilla, X11, gcc, kernel, etc) would
make sure that a heads up email about a major version change goes out.

If you put out a heads up that "tomorrow I will be pushing Firefox
57BETA into updates-testing" you could have given people heads up and
would have also learned from someone that updates-testing is on for
everyone in the post-branch world. While in this case it probably
would not have affected your decision, in other cases it might have
made it clearer that you needed to do so after a different time. It
would have also queued in people to either skip updates or know why
their workflow died.


I agree with you here, I should post the head up. I agree I 
underestimated that and I'm sorry for it.


ma.


In either case, people would be better informed.

[1] 
https://opensource.com/business/10/3/five-questions-about-building-community-chris-blizzard-mozilla



___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

[Gerald B. Cox]

On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 5:36 PM, Adam Williamson  wrote:

> On Wed, 2017-10-11 at 17:13 -0700, Gerald B. Cox wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 12:08 PM, Martin Stransky 
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > I'm surprised that people use updates-testing for stable/production
> > > machines, have problem with handling the update and act like newbies.
> If
> > > you can't handle that, don't use that. Fedora is really a bleeding
> edge so
> > > don't complain you get new software with new features - even as testing
> > > only :)
> > >
> > > Where is Matthew Miller when you need him?  No one said anything about
> >
> > using updates-testing for stable/productioin machines.  And the fact that
> > you're implying that Fedora itself is bleeding edge and not really suited
> > for production raises a huge red flag.
> >
> > i have no doubt when this whole situation is reviewed logical minds will
> > prevail, but in the meantime you've taken advantage of a loophole.
> > Congratulations.
>
> I think you're getting a bit needlessly confrontational at this point.
> The issue's been sufficiently well raised now. Let's try to move
> forward productively from here...
>

Exactly what is confrontational?  I quoted his statement.  Yes, the issue
has been raised.
Martin is apparently going to keep it in updates-testing because that's
what he wants to do.
It may or may not be reviewed - and he took advantage of a loophole.  Since
when is in confrontational to summarize
facts?
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

[Adam Williamson]

On Wed, 2017-10-11 at 17:13 -0700, Gerald B. Cox wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 12:08 PM, Martin Stransky 
> wrote:
> 
> > 
> > 
> > I'm surprised that people use updates-testing for stable/production
> > machines, have problem with handling the update and act like newbies. If
> > you can't handle that, don't use that. Fedora is really a bleeding edge so
> > don't complain you get new software with new features - even as testing
> > only :)
> > 
> > Where is Matthew Miller when you need him?  No one said anything about
> 
> using updates-testing for stable/productioin machines.  And the fact that
> you're implying that Fedora itself is bleeding edge and not really suited
> for production raises a huge red flag.
> 
> i have no doubt when this whole situation is reviewed logical minds will
> prevail, but in the meantime you've taken advantage of a loophole.
> Congratulations.

I think you're getting a bit needlessly confrontational at this point.
The issue's been sufficiently well raised now. Let's try to move
forward productively from here...
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

[Gerald B. Cox]

On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 12:08 PM, Martin Stransky 
wrote:

>
>
> I'm surprised that people use updates-testing for stable/production
> machines, have problem with handling the update and act like newbies. If
> you can't handle that, don't use that. Fedora is really a bleeding edge so
> don't complain you get new software with new features - even as testing
> only :)
>
> Where is Matthew Miller when you need him?  No one said anything about
using updates-testing for stable/productioin machines.  And the fact that
you're implying that Fedora itself is bleeding edge and not really suited
for production raises a huge red flag.

i have no doubt when this whole situation is reviewed logical minds will
prevail, but in the meantime you've taken advantage of a loophole.
Congratulations.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

[Pierre-Yves Chibon]

On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 10:07:44PM +0100, James Hogarth wrote:
>Yes I saw the commit but that is my very point. 
>I was pretty sure that only scratch builds could be carried out from non
>release branches but you get something into a compose you needed to merge
>to master or a release branch. 

I am also pretty sure this didn't change, since koji does not have the ability
to know in which branch a commit is, it takes a url to a git repo and that's
about it.


Pierre
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

[Adam Williamson]

On Wed, 2017-10-11 at 20:58 +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> 
> OTOH, let's consider two points: one, FF57 is disruptive, and two,
> FF57 will be released as an update in Fedora when Mozilla make the
> release, as specified by our policy for FF updates.

Uh, what policy is that? AFAICS Firefox does not have a specific update
policy. It's also not listed as having any exceptions at:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Updates_Policy#Exceptions .

AIUI we usually send updates to newer Firefox versions out for stable
releases under the 'needed to get security fixes out' clause. But that
doesn't mean we *must* ship every new version as an update immediately.

>  In the light of
> this, it seems reasonable to push FF57 to updates-testing right now,
> the sooner the better.
> 
> I don't get the whole kerfuffle about FF57 being beta: F27 is in beta
> now too, and it's the time to test what will be in the relased version,
> and using a pre-release of a package seems to be a better way to do
> this than using some old version that will be soon replaced.
> If we had a different updates policy for Firefox in Fedora, things
> would be different, but we don't.

I don't care about it being in beta. I *do* care about this being an
unusual approach to shipping a major Firefox change which wasn't really
discussed or even notified about in advance, and which involves sending
a package to updates-testing which is clearly not destined for stable.
If the package of the beta Firefox was actually intended to go to
stable Fedora, and that was in line with the update policy, that would
be a different case.
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

[Matěj Cepl]

On 2017-10-11, 14:38 GMT, Martin Stransky wrote:
> And no, I'm not going to create COPR builds for that - it does 
> not contain required NSS/NSPR packages and building from git 
> is broken.

I don’t think I want to get immersed into merit of this 
discussion, but let me just note that:

a) there is no problem to build NSS/NSPR packages in COPR as 
   well,

b) it is possible to build package in COPR from ANY URL of 
   SRPM, which means it could be as well SRPM in koji.

Just my €0.02.

Matěj
-- 
http://matej.ceplovi.cz/blog/, Jabber: mceplceplovi.cz
GPG Finger: 3C76 A027 CA45 AD70 98B5  BC1D 7920 5802 880B C9D8
 
Besides, the determined Real Programmer can write Fortran
programs in any language.
  -- Ed Post, Real Programmers Don't Use Pascal
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

[James Hogarth]

On 11 Oct 2017 4:48 pm, "Pierre-Yves Chibon"  wrote:

On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 04:34:52PM +0100, James Hogarth wrote:
>On 11 October 2017 at 16:23, Gerald B. Cox  wrote:
>
>  On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 7:23 AM, Till Hofmann
>   wrote:
>
>The very first sentence of the page you linked above:
>
>  The updates-testing repository, also referred to as Test Updates,
>  contains updates scheduled to be released for Branched
pre-releases
>  (after the Bodhi enabling point) and stable releases of Fedora
>
>The point is that your update is not intended to ever make it to
the
>stable update, i.e., it is not "scheduled to be released" for
>anything. If I understood correctly, you want people to test the
beta
>version and then eventually submit the final release (i.e., not
this
>update) to stable. I don't think that's how the updates-testing
>repository is supposed to be used. Instead, it should only contain
>updates that will eventually make it into stable.
>
>Regards,
>Till
>
>  +1 - Exactly...
>
>Thought I'd quickly test this being built in a COPR ... but where
exactly
>are you building from?
>https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/firefox/blob/f27/f/firefox.spec
>That shows vesion 56, not 57, and same with rawhide.
>I didn't think we could build from a non-fedora-branch git branch for a
>bodhi update ... that feels ... wrong ...Â
>Is this an intended effect of the "arbitrary branches" for
modularity?Â
>This really feels like it breaks the history/audit trail fro what ends
up
>in our repos.
>This doesn't even show the branch it came
>from:Â https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=981886

But it gives the commit which is:
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/firefox/c/fd700ad0ae450c4705017e05db7af7
09f7ea90f0?branch=stransky-firefox-57
itself part of the stransky-firefox-57 branch:
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/firefox/commits/stransky-firefox-57

This behavior is nothing new and is the reason why releng does not allow to
delete branches in dist-git.


Pierre
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org


Yes I saw the commit but that is my very point.

I was pretty sure that only scratch builds could be carried out from non
release branches but you get something into a compose you needed to merge
to master or a release branch.

Otherwise things like releng or proven packagers doing rebuilds for library
bumps or similar issues start to go very wrong.

They'd go to do a patch or release bump in the branch and boom...
versioning screwed.

As I said I suspect this is a side affect of the modularity arbitrary
branching stuff, similar to how as an accident it was possible to do docker
container builds from the rpms namespace at first.

It'd be good to get confirmation from releng or FESCo on the intended
behaviour as this feels wrong...
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

[Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek]

On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 12:52:11PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-10-11 at 15:42 -0400, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> > On 11 October 2017 at 15:08, Martin Stransky  wrote:
> > > On 10/11/2017 07:26 PM, Gerald B. Cox wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 10:04 AM, Heiko Adams  
> > > > wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > Am Mittwoch, den 11.10.2017, 07:53 -0700 schrieb Gerald B. Cox:
> > > > > 
> > > > > By definition BETA software is never intended to be pushed to stable. 
> > > > >  Fx
> > > > > 57 is BETA.  When the STABLE version is released, then it can go into
> > > > > updates-testing.  Not before.  Again, that is the purpose of RAWHIDE.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Does this mean it's also not allowed to push packaged git-snapshots 
> > > > > of a
> > > > > software to updates-testing because they are unreleased and 
> > > > > potentially
> > > > > unstable?
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > As Adam mentioned apparently this isn't the "Official Policy".
> > > > 
> > > > My opinion however is common sense dictates that you don't put anything 
> > > > in
> > > > updates-testing unless you intend to push that software to stable.  If 
> > > > you
> > > > want people to test out experimental software, put it in RAWHIDE.  If 
> > > > it's
> > > > a git-snapshot and your INTENT is to push it to stable (for example,
> > > > you're
> > > > fixing a bug) then that is OK for updates-testing.
> > > > 
> > > > In this instance, there is no intent to push Fx 57 BETA to stable.  
> > > > That's
> > > > why it does't belong in update-testing.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > I think there's a bit misunderstanding here. Some parts of the FF57 update
> > > are going to be in stable as is (if the testing goes well). That includes
> > > the CSD patch [1].
> > > 
> > 
> > There are several misunderstandings here but they all stem from a core
> > problem which an old Mozilla quote covers:
> > 
> > Surprise is the opposite of engagement. [1]
> > 
> > It is something we forget a lot.. but is a reason why older
> > maintainers of XYZ software (Mozilla, X11, gcc, kernel, etc) would
> > make sure that a heads up email about a major version change goes out.
> > 
> > If you put out a heads up that "tomorrow I will be pushing Firefox
> > 57BETA into updates-testing" you could have given people heads up and
> > would have also learned from someone that updates-testing is on for
> > everyone in the post-branch world. While in this case it probably
> > would not have affected your decision, in other cases it might have
> > made it clearer that you needed to do so after a different time. It
> > would have also queued in people to either skip updates or know why
> > their workflow died.
> > 
> > In either case, people would be better informed.
> 
> Agreed. It is true that in general people using updates-testing should
> more or less know what they're doing, but they're not necessarily
> expecting surprises like this. And as smooge says, updates-testing is
> enabled by default in Branched releases (so, F27 at present); anyone
> running F27 Beta will get this package as soon as it reaches the
> mirrors.

OTOH, let's consider two points: one, FF57 is disruptive, and two,
FF57 will be released as an update in Fedora when Mozilla make the
release, as specified by our policy for FF updates. In the light of
this, it seems reasonable to push FF57 to updates-testing right now,
the sooner the better.

I don't get the whole kerfuffle about FF57 being beta: F27 is in beta
now too, and it's the time to test what will be in the relased version,
and using a pre-release of a package seems to be a better way to do
this than using some old version that will be soon replaced.
If we had a different updates policy for Firefox in Fedora, things
would be different, but we don't.

Zbyszek

> I think Harald really has a point that the potentially disruptive
> nature of the changes in 57 should mean that, if anything, we go
> *slower* in pushing it out to our users, not *faster*. Unless it
> includes vital security fixes we can't backport, I don't think there's
> necessarily a reason we need to jump all over this and try to get it
> out on release day; why not wait a bit while providing a way for early
> adopters to try it out if they'd like to?
> 
> Note that there is an alternative to both u-t and COPR; you can do
> scratch builds in Koji, or do real builds but don't actually submit
> them to updates-testing , and either provide a repo with those builds
> yourself, or just write a blog post or something explaining which
> packages people should pull from Koji if they want to test...
> -- 
> Adam Williamson
> Fedora QA Community Monkey
> IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
> http://www.happyassassin.net
> ___
> devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

[Adam Williamson]

On Wed, 2017-10-11 at 15:42 -0400, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> On 11 October 2017 at 15:08, Martin Stransky  wrote:
> > On 10/11/2017 07:26 PM, Gerald B. Cox wrote:
> > > 
> > > On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 10:04 AM, Heiko Adams  wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Am Mittwoch, den 11.10.2017, 07:53 -0700 schrieb Gerald B. Cox:
> > > > 
> > > > By definition BETA software is never intended to be pushed to stable.  
> > > > Fx
> > > > 57 is BETA.  When the STABLE version is released, then it can go into
> > > > updates-testing.  Not before.  Again, that is the purpose of RAWHIDE.
> > > > 
> > > > Does this mean it's also not allowed to push packaged git-snapshots of a
> > > > software to updates-testing because they are unreleased and potentially
> > > > unstable?
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > As Adam mentioned apparently this isn't the "Official Policy".
> > > 
> > > My opinion however is common sense dictates that you don't put anything in
> > > updates-testing unless you intend to push that software to stable.  If you
> > > want people to test out experimental software, put it in RAWHIDE.  If it's
> > > a git-snapshot and your INTENT is to push it to stable (for example,
> > > you're
> > > fixing a bug) then that is OK for updates-testing.
> > > 
> > > In this instance, there is no intent to push Fx 57 BETA to stable.  That's
> > > why it does't belong in update-testing.
> > 
> > 
> > I think there's a bit misunderstanding here. Some parts of the FF57 update
> > are going to be in stable as is (if the testing goes well). That includes
> > the CSD patch [1].
> > 
> 
> There are several misunderstandings here but they all stem from a core
> problem which an old Mozilla quote covers:
> 
> Surprise is the opposite of engagement. [1]
> 
> It is something we forget a lot.. but is a reason why older
> maintainers of XYZ software (Mozilla, X11, gcc, kernel, etc) would
> make sure that a heads up email about a major version change goes out.
> 
> If you put out a heads up that "tomorrow I will be pushing Firefox
> 57BETA into updates-testing" you could have given people heads up and
> would have also learned from someone that updates-testing is on for
> everyone in the post-branch world. While in this case it probably
> would not have affected your decision, in other cases it might have
> made it clearer that you needed to do so after a different time. It
> would have also queued in people to either skip updates or know why
> their workflow died.
> 
> In either case, people would be better informed.

Agreed. It is true that in general people using updates-testing should
more or less know what they're doing, but they're not necessarily
expecting surprises like this. And as smooge says, updates-testing is
enabled by default in Branched releases (so, F27 at present); anyone
running F27 Beta will get this package as soon as it reaches the
mirrors.

I think Harald really has a point that the potentially disruptive
nature of the changes in 57 should mean that, if anything, we go
*slower* in pushing it out to our users, not *faster*. Unless it
includes vital security fixes we can't backport, I don't think there's
necessarily a reason we need to jump all over this and try to get it
out on release day; why not wait a bit while providing a way for early
adopters to try it out if they'd like to?

Note that there is an alternative to both u-t and COPR; you can do
scratch builds in Koji, or do real builds but don't actually submit
them to updates-testing , and either provide a repo with those builds
yourself, or just write a blog post or something explaining which
packages people should pull from Koji if they want to test...
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

[Stephen John Smoogen]

On 11 October 2017 at 15:08, Martin Stransky  wrote:
> On 10/11/2017 07:26 PM, Gerald B. Cox wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 10:04 AM, Heiko Adams  wrote:
>>
>>> Am Mittwoch, den 11.10.2017, 07:53 -0700 schrieb Gerald B. Cox:
>>>
>>> By definition BETA software is never intended to be pushed to stable.  Fx
>>> 57 is BETA.  When the STABLE version is released, then it can go into
>>> updates-testing.  Not before.  Again, that is the purpose of RAWHIDE.
>>>
>>> Does this mean it's also not allowed to push packaged git-snapshots of a
>>> software to updates-testing because they are unreleased and potentially
>>> unstable?
>>>
>>
>> As Adam mentioned apparently this isn't the "Official Policy".
>>
>> My opinion however is common sense dictates that you don't put anything in
>> updates-testing unless you intend to push that software to stable.  If you
>> want people to test out experimental software, put it in RAWHIDE.  If it's
>> a git-snapshot and your INTENT is to push it to stable (for example,
>> you're
>> fixing a bug) then that is OK for updates-testing.
>>
>> In this instance, there is no intent to push Fx 57 BETA to stable.  That's
>> why it does't belong in update-testing.
>
>
> I think there's a bit misunderstanding here. Some parts of the FF57 update
> are going to be in stable as is (if the testing goes well). That includes
> the CSD patch [1].
>

There are several misunderstandings here but they all stem from a core
problem which an old Mozilla quote covers:

Surprise is the opposite of engagement. [1]

It is something we forget a lot.. but is a reason why older
maintainers of XYZ software (Mozilla, X11, gcc, kernel, etc) would
make sure that a heads up email about a major version change goes out.

If you put out a heads up that "tomorrow I will be pushing Firefox
57BETA into updates-testing" you could have given people heads up and
would have also learned from someone that updates-testing is on for
everyone in the post-branch world. While in this case it probably
would not have affected your decision, in other cases it might have
made it clearer that you needed to do so after a different time. It
would have also queued in people to either skip updates or know why
their workflow died.

In either case, people would be better informed.

[1] 
https://opensource.com/business/10/3/five-questions-about-building-community-chris-blizzard-mozilla


-- 
Stephen J Smoogen.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

[Martin Stransky]

On 10/11/2017 07:26 PM, Gerald B. Cox wrote:

On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 10:04 AM, Heiko Adams  wrote:


Am Mittwoch, den 11.10.2017, 07:53 -0700 schrieb Gerald B. Cox:

By definition BETA software is never intended to be pushed to stable.  Fx
57 is BETA.  When the STABLE version is released, then it can go into
updates-testing.  Not before.  Again, that is the purpose of RAWHIDE.

Does this mean it's also not allowed to push packaged git-snapshots of a
software to updates-testing because they are unreleased and potentially
unstable?



As Adam mentioned apparently this isn't the "Official Policy".

My opinion however is common sense dictates that you don't put anything in
updates-testing unless you intend to push that software to stable.  If you
want people to test out experimental software, put it in RAWHIDE.  If it's
a git-snapshot and your INTENT is to push it to stable (for example, you're
fixing a bug) then that is OK for updates-testing.

In this instance, there is no intent to push Fx 57 BETA to stable.  That's
why it does't belong in update-testing.


I think there's a bit misunderstanding here. Some parts of the FF57 
update are going to be in stable as is (if the testing goes well). That 
includes the CSD patch [1].


The package may not be finished yet but the FF57 is almost done
and 99% of the code is going to be shipped to stable. This is not a 
completely different version, it may got some bugfixes but what you see 
is what you will almost get as stable update at Nov 14.


I'm sure the package is almost done so I don't take your argument about 
"completely different" package.


Due to the radical change in extension handlings and also needs to test 
the CSD patch [1] which I'd like to include in stable package I decided 
to put the FF57 to testing as early as possible. This is really a 
special case.


I believed that the update-testing repository is intended for testing 
and it's used by power users who can handle that, exclude the package 
from testing if needed, downgrade broken package and so on.


I'm surprised that people use updates-testing for stable/production 
machines, have problem with handling the update and act like newbies. If 
you can't handle that, don't use that. Fedora is really a bleeding edge 
so don't complain you get new software with new features - even as 
testing only :)


Also, I think your expectation about dramatic change of new extension 
availability for FF57 last month before the final release is false.


ma.

[1] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1283299
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

[Stephen Gallagher]

On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 1:37 PM Gerald B. Cox  wrote:

> You need to read my entire statement in context.  That is not what I
> meant.  As I replied to Heiko:
>
> "My opinion however is common sense dictates that you don't put anything
> in updates-testing unless you intend to push that software to stable.  If
> you want people to test out experimental software, put it in RAWHIDE.  If
> it's a git-snapshot and your INTENT is to push it to stable (for example,
> you're fixing a bug) then that is OK for updates-testing.
>
> In this instance, there is no intent to push Fx 57 BETA to stable.  That's
> why it does't belong in update-testing."
>
> In this instance, I believe that RAWHIDE would be appropriate - since it
> not so much a prototype as a BETA release of a single package which is
> being released within a month.  Something like a test release of KDE/GNOME
> which is comprised of multiple packages would be ideal for COPR - but a Fx
> BETA COPR would be an excellent idea also.
>
>
Actually, I'm not sure if it belongs in Rawhide either, but it's closer.
The purpose of Rawhide is actually *integration*, not prototyping.
Prereleases are permissible in Rawhide when it is known that this package
may require coordinating other updates (such as updating to a new release
of a language interpreter or a desktop environment), but in general the
goal should be that Rawhide be kept reasonably stable and not treated as a
free-for-all playground. In this particular case, I can see an argument
here in that we probably want to have a place to work out any
incompatibilities with extensions that are packaged in Fedora, but I'm not
sure how many of those there are.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

[Gerald B. Cox]

On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 10:24 AM, Stephen Gallagher 
wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 1:05 PM Heiko Adams  wrote:
>
>> Am Mittwoch, den 11.10.2017, 07:53 -0700 schrieb Gerald B. Cox:
>>
>> By definition BETA software is never intended to be pushed to stable.  Fx
>> 57 is BETA.  When the STABLE version is released, then it can go into
>> updates-testing.  Not before.  Again, that is the purpose of RAWHIDE.
>>
>> Does this mean it's also not allowed to push packaged git-snapshots of a
>> software to updates-testing because they are unreleased and potentially
>> unstable?
>>
>
> I think Gerald's position is overstating it. Upstream's definition of what
> is "beta" or "stable" is informative but not definitive.
>
> However, in this particular case, the maintainer has stated that this
> version of the package is *not* intended to actually go to the stable
> Fedora repository, which says to me that it should not be in the
> updates-testing stream at all. The point of u-t is to be a last-chance
> check on the quality before it goes out to all users. It's not intended to
> be a prototyping location; that's one of COPR's jobs.
>
>
You need to read my entire statement in context.  That is not what I
meant.  As I replied to Heiko:

"My opinion however is common sense dictates that you don't put anything in
updates-testing unless you intend to push that software to stable.  If you
want people to test out experimental software, put it in RAWHIDE.  If it's
a git-snapshot and your INTENT is to push it to stable (for example, you're
fixing a bug) then that is OK for updates-testing.

In this instance, there is no intent to push Fx 57 BETA to stable.  That's
why it does't belong in update-testing."

In this instance, I believe that RAWHIDE would be appropriate - since it
not so much a prototype as a BETA release of a single package which is
being released within a month.  Something like a test release of KDE/GNOME
which is comprised of multiple packages would be ideal for COPR - but a Fx
BETA COPR would be an excellent idea also.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

[Gerald B. Cox]

On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 10:04 AM, Heiko Adams  wrote:

> Am Mittwoch, den 11.10.2017, 07:53 -0700 schrieb Gerald B. Cox:
>
> By definition BETA software is never intended to be pushed to stable.  Fx
> 57 is BETA.  When the STABLE version is released, then it can go into
> updates-testing.  Not before.  Again, that is the purpose of RAWHIDE.
>
> Does this mean it's also not allowed to push packaged git-snapshots of a
> software to updates-testing because they are unreleased and potentially
> unstable?
>

As Adam mentioned apparently this isn't the "Official Policy".

My opinion however is common sense dictates that you don't put anything in
updates-testing unless you intend to push that software to stable.  If you
want people to test out experimental software, put it in RAWHIDE.  If it's
a git-snapshot and your INTENT is to push it to stable (for example, you're
fixing a bug) then that is OK for updates-testing.

In this instance, there is no intent to push Fx 57 BETA to stable.  That's
why it does't belong in update-testing.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

[Stephen Gallagher]

On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 1:05 PM Heiko Adams  wrote:

> Am Mittwoch, den 11.10.2017, 07:53 -0700 schrieb Gerald B. Cox:
>
> By definition BETA software is never intended to be pushed to stable.  Fx
> 57 is BETA.  When the STABLE version is released, then it can go into
> updates-testing.  Not before.  Again, that is the purpose of RAWHIDE.
>
> Does this mean it's also not allowed to push packaged git-snapshots of a
> software to updates-testing because they are unreleased and potentially
> unstable?
>

I think Gerald's position is overstating it. Upstream's definition of what
is "beta" or "stable" is informative but not definitive.

However, in this particular case, the maintainer has stated that this
version of the package is *not* intended to actually go to the stable
Fedora repository, which says to me that it should not be in the
updates-testing stream at all. The point of u-t is to be a last-chance
check on the quality before it goes out to all users. It's not intended to
be a prototyping location; that's one of COPR's jobs.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

[Gerald B. Cox]

On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 9:58 AM, Adam Williamson  wrote:

> On Wed, 2017-10-11 at 07:53 -0700, Gerald B. Cox wrote:
> 
> > Martin, this is what is stated at the very top of the doc you referenced:
> > "The *updates-testing* repository
> 
>
> It's worth noting that page isn't really a policy page, it's just an
> 'informational' page. It's not officially maintained by anyone in
> control of the update process, or anything. The text was probably just
> written by a single person, describing the process as they understand
> it (it may well have been me). I wouldn't rely excessively strongly on
> a literal reading of the text as if it were the word of law.
>

That's fine, but Martin referenced it and I just pointed out the plain
reading -
which is updates there are intended to be pushed to stable.


>
> The main official policy page regarding updates is:
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Updates_Policy
>
> that page *is* locked to drive-by edits and *is* controlled by (IIRC)
> FESCo in their role as maintainers of the update process. It doesn't
> really have any rules, right now, about how updates-testing is to be
> used, but this seems like an omission.
>

I agree, if that page is the policy, it is an omission and needs to be
corrected.


>
> FWIW, my own belief is similar to yours and sgallagh's: updates-testing
> is really only intended for packages you believe there is at least a
> decent chance will be ready to be pushed stable. It's not really
> intended for sending out packages you have no intention of pushing
> stable. But this does seem to be a slightly unusual case, at least
> reading between the lines. Perhaps if Firefox 57 is a sufficiently
> significant update that it needs special handling, exactly how this is
> to be done (for all supported releases) should be discussed and
> arranged with FPC and/or FESCo?
>


Well, the problem is that in Fx 57 many extensions will stop working.  A
few extensions which I
use have been modified in the last few days, and many others probably won't
be released until
the last minute.  Many people have updates-testing enabled automatically to
tests and report on
software.  They aren't expected BETA software to be there.  That is the
point.  Software
that is not intended to be pushed to STABLE belongs in RAWHIDE.  While
apparently it isn't written officially
anywhere doesn't mean that people should start using updates-testing in
that manner.  As I mentioned
above, if that is the case, why do we need RAWHIDE.

As far as Fx 57 being a special case, it isn't.  In fact, if anything due
to the extension breakage it should be
handled with an abundance of caution - which means don't do anything which
would case someone to
accidentally install it.

It's extremely easy to install Fx from RAWHIDE by using koji.  There is no
reason to put it in updates-testing.

This is just sending the wrong message and inviting people to start
populating updates-testing with RAWHIDE software -
and I can't imagine why anyone would want that.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

[Emmanuel Seyman]

* Gerald B. Cox [11/10/2017 07:53] :
>
> By definition BETA software is never intended to be pushed to stable.

We've sometimes pushed beta versions of software, usually when that version is
more stable than the previous stable release.

I'm all for enforcing rules on what goes to the updates and updates-testing
repos but I'ld be happier if they went through the proper channels (FESCo/FPC)
rather than made up on the fly.

Emmanuel
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

[Heiko Adams]

Am Mittwoch, den 11.10.2017, 07:53 -0700 schrieb Gerald B. Cox:
> By definition BETA software is never intended to be pushed to
> stable.  Fx 57 is BETA.  When the STABLE version is released, then it
> can go into updates-testing.  Not before.  Again, that is the purpose
> of RAWHIDE.
>  
> 
> 
> 
Does this mean it's also not allowed to push packaged git-snapshots of
a software to updates-testing because they are unreleased and
potentially unstable?
-- 
Regards,

Heiko Adams


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

[Adam Williamson]

On Wed, 2017-10-11 at 07:53 -0700, Gerald B. Cox wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 7:00 AM, Martin Stransky 
> wrote:
> 
> > 
> >It's *updates*-testing repo and software in it should not be 'planned',
> > > but basically 'ready' for Fedora.
> > >If you want testing repo for experienced users, use COPR.
> > > 
> > 
> > I don't see it that way. Is that your personal statement or is that
> > written in any Fedora rules? I don't see that at Fedora page [1].
> > 
> > Also, the COPR suffers from some drawbacks - can't easily build from
> > Fedora or other git repo [2].
> > 
> > ma.
> > 
> > [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing
> > [2] I know it's supposed to work but the work flow is somehow complicated
> > and uneasy and it's broken from time to time (actually right now).
> > 
> 
> Martin, this is what is stated at the very top of the doc you referenced:
> "The *updates-testing* repository
> , also
> referred to as *Test Updates*, contains updates scheduled to be released
> for Branched 
> pre-releases (after the Bodhi enabling point
> ) and stable
> releases of Fedora. User testing and feedback provided via Bodhi
> , on the test
>  mailing list and
> the relevant Bugzilla  is vital to ensure that
> good updates are released quickly and bad ones kept away from release."

It's worth noting that page isn't really a policy page, it's just an
'informational' page. It's not officially maintained by anyone in
control of the update process, or anything. The text was probably just
written by a single person, describing the process as they understand
it (it may well have been me). I wouldn't rely excessively strongly on
a literal reading of the text as if it were the word of law.

The main official policy page regarding updates is:

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Updates_Policy

that page *is* locked to drive-by edits and *is* controlled by (IIRC)
FESCo in their role as maintainers of the update process. It doesn't
really have any rules, right now, about how updates-testing is to be
used, but this seems like an omission.

FWIW, my own belief is similar to yours and sgallagh's: updates-testing 
is really only intended for packages you believe there is at least a
decent chance will be ready to be pushed stable. It's not really
intended for sending out packages you have no intention of pushing
stable. But this does seem to be a slightly unusual case, at least
reading between the lines. Perhaps if Firefox 57 is a sufficiently
significant update that it needs special handling, exactly how this is
to be done (for all supported releases) should be discussed and
arranged with FPC and/or FESCo?
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

[Pierre-Yves Chibon]

On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 04:34:52PM +0100, James Hogarth wrote:
>On 11 October 2017 at 16:23, Gerald B. Cox  wrote:
> 
>  On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 7:23 AM, Till Hofmann
>   wrote:
> 
>The very first sentence of the page you linked above:
> 
>  The updates-testing repository, also referred to as Test Updates,
>  contains updates scheduled to be released for Branched pre-releases
>  (after the Bodhi enabling point) and stable releases of Fedora
> 
>The point is that your update is not intended to ever make it to the
>stable update, i.e., it is not "scheduled to be released" for
>anything. If I understood correctly, you want people to test the beta
>version and then eventually submit the final release (i.e., not this
>update) to stable. I don't think that's how the updates-testing
>repository is supposed to be used. Instead, it should only contain
>updates that will eventually make it into stable.
> 
>Regards,
>Till
> 
>  +1 - Exactly...
> 
>Thought I'd quickly test this being built in a COPR ... but where exactly
>are you building from?
>https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/firefox/blob/f27/f/firefox.spec
>That shows vesion 56, not 57, and same with rawhide.
>I didn't think we could build from a non-fedora-branch git branch for a
>bodhi update ... that feels ... wrong ... 
>Is this an intended effect of the "arbitrary branches" for modularity? 
>This really feels like it breaks the history/audit trail fro what ends up
>in our repos.
>This doesn't even show the branch it came
>from: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=981886

But it gives the commit which is:
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/firefox/c/fd700ad0ae450c4705017e05db7af709f7ea90f0?branch=stransky-firefox-57
itself part of the stransky-firefox-57 branch:
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/firefox/commits/stransky-firefox-57

This behavior is nothing new and is the reason why releng does not allow to
delete branches in dist-git.


Pierre
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

[James Hogarth]

On 11 October 2017 at 16:23, Gerald B. Cox  wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 7:23 AM, Till Hofmann 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> The very first sentence of the page you linked above:
>>
>>> The updates-testing repository, also referred to as Test Updates,
>>> contains updates scheduled to be released for Branched pre-releases (after
>>> the Bodhi enabling point) and stable releases of Fedora
>>>
>>
>> The point is that your update is not intended to ever make it to the
>> stable update, i.e., it is not "scheduled to be released" for anything. If
>> I understood correctly, you want people to test the beta version and then
>> eventually submit the final release (i.e., not this update) to stable. I
>> don't think that's how the updates-testing repository is supposed to be
>> used. Instead, it should only contain updates that will eventually make it
>> into stable.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Till
>>
>
> +1 - Exactly...
>
>
>
>
Thought I'd quickly test this being built in a COPR ... but where exactly
are you building from?

https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/firefox/blob/f27/f/firefox.spec

That shows vesion 56, not 57, and same with rawhide.

I didn't think we could build from a non-fedora-branch git branch for a
bodhi update ... that feels ... wrong ...

Is this an intended effect of the "arbitrary branches" for modularity?

This really feels like it breaks the history/audit trail fro what ends up
in our repos.

This doesn't even show the branch it came from:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=981886

Surely stuff that is non-scratch in koji and intended for a Fedora compose
should come from a release branch - at least outside of modularity stuff?
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

[Gerald B. Cox]

On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 7:23 AM, Till Hofmann 
wrote:

>
>
> The very first sentence of the page you linked above:
>
>> The updates-testing repository, also referred to as Test Updates,
>> contains updates scheduled to be released for Branched pre-releases (after
>> the Bodhi enabling point) and stable releases of Fedora
>>
>
> The point is that your update is not intended to ever make it to the
> stable update, i.e., it is not "scheduled to be released" for anything. If
> I understood correctly, you want people to test the beta version and then
> eventually submit the final release (i.e., not this update) to stable. I
> don't think that's how the updates-testing repository is supposed to be
> used. Instead, it should only contain updates that will eventually make it
> into stable.
>
> Regards,
> Till
>

+1 - Exactly...
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

[Gerald B. Cox]

On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 7:00 AM, Martin Stransky 
wrote:

>
>It's *updates*-testing repo and software in it should not be 'planned',
>> but basically 'ready' for Fedora.
>>If you want testing repo for experienced users, use COPR.
>>
>
> I don't see it that way. Is that your personal statement or is that
> written in any Fedora rules? I don't see that at Fedora page [1].
>
> Also, the COPR suffers from some drawbacks - can't easily build from
> Fedora or other git repo [2].
>
> ma.
>
> [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing
> [2] I know it's supposed to work but the work flow is somehow complicated
> and uneasy and it's broken from time to time (actually right now).
>

Martin, this is what is stated at the very top of the doc you referenced:
"The *updates-testing* repository
, also
referred to as *Test Updates*, contains updates scheduled to be released
for Branched 
pre-releases (after the Bodhi enabling point
) and stable
releases of Fedora. User testing and feedback provided via Bodhi
, on the test
 mailing list and
the relevant Bugzilla  is vital to ensure that
good updates are released quickly and bad ones kept away from release."

By definition BETA software is never intended to be pushed to stable.  Fx
57 is BETA.  When the STABLE version is released, then it can go into
updates-testing.  Not before.  Again, that is the purpose of RAWHIDE.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

[Gerald B. Cox]

On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 6:32 AM, Martin Stransky 
wrote:

> On 10/11/2017 03:17 PM, Gerald B. Cox wrote:
>
>> Was this on purpose?  Fx 57 is BETA, and  I was under the impression that
>> BETA software was for RAWHIDE.
>>
>
> It's going to be stable in one month. Fx 57 release date is 2017-11-14.
>

And?  My point was that Fx 57 isn't stable now, it's BETA.


>
> Yes, I understand there is an annotation NOT to push Fx 57 to stable - but
>> I thought that was the purpose of updates testing... software there is
>> intended to be tested and pushed to stable.
>>
>
> I expect the testing repo is used by experienced users who wish to test
> software planned for Fedora thus I don't see any problem here.
>

It is my understanding that is the purpose of RAWHIDE.  updates-testing is
for software that is intended to be pushed to stable.  It isn't for BETA
software.


> There are many extensions which aren't yet available for Fx 57 - and we're
>> effectively moving up the timetable by putting it in updates testing.
>>
>
> Do you think it's better when it suddenly appears on stable at 2017-11-14?
> I do not.
>

Well, if people want to test, they can use Nightly or RAWHIDE.  If people
start placing BETA software in updates-testing, why do we need
RAWHIDE.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

[Martin Stransky]

On 10/11/2017 03:17 PM, Gerald B. Cox wrote:

Was this on purpose?  Fx 57 is BETA, and  I was under the impression that
BETA software was for RAWHIDE.

Yes, I understand there is an annotation NOT to push Fx 57 to stable - but
I thought that was the purpose of updates testing... software there is
intended to be tested and pushed to stable.

There are many extensions which aren't yet available for Fx 57 - and we're
effectively moving up the timetable by putting it in updates testing.


To be clear here, my intention was to enable early testing of new 
Firefox 57 release which also includes the CSD patch [1].


If there's no interest for such package I'll pull that out and you can 
expect regular FF57 update when the time comes. Please speak out at #BZ [2].


And no, I'm not going to create COPR builds for that - it does not 
contain required NSS/NSPR packages and building from git is broken.


ma.

[1] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1399611
[2] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1500806
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

[Stephen Gallagher]

On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 10:26 AM Till Hofmann 
wrote:

>
> The very first sentence of the page you linked above:
> > The updates-testing repository, also referred to as Test Updates,
> contains updates scheduled to be released for Branched pre-releases (after
> the Bodhi enabling point) and stable releases of Fedora
>
> The point is that your update is not intended to ever make it to the
> stable update, i.e., it is not "scheduled to be released" for anything.
> If I understood correctly, you want people to test the beta version and
> then eventually submit the final release (i.e., not this update) to
> stable. I don't think that's how the updates-testing repository is
> supposed to be used. Instead, it should only contain updates that will
> eventually make it into stable.
>
>
Yeah, testing for a package that isn't expected to arrive in the stable
stream really belongs in a COPR these days. The updates-testing repo should
really be used exclusively as a stopover towards a stable release (with the
option to revoke it if it reveals problems).
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

[Till Hofmann]

On 10/11/2017 04:00 PM, Martin Stransky wrote:

On 10/11/2017 03:52 PM, Tomasz Torcz wrote:

On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 03:32:07PM +0200, Martin Stransky wrote:

On 10/11/2017 03:17 PM, Gerald B. Cox wrote:
Was this on purpose?  Fx 57 is BETA, and  I was under the impression 
that

BETA software was for RAWHIDE.


It's going to be stable in one month. Fx 57 release date is 2017-11-14.

Yes, I understand there is an annotation NOT to push Fx 57 to stable 
- but

I thought that was the purpose of updates testing... software there is
intended to be tested and pushed to stable.


I expect the testing repo is used by experienced users who wish to test
software planned for Fedora thus I don't see any problem here.


   It's *updates*-testing repo and software in it should not be 
'planned',

but basically 'ready' for Fedora.
   If you want testing repo for experienced users, use COPR.


I don't see it that way. Is that your personal statement or is that 
written in any Fedora rules? I don't see that at Fedora page [1].



The very first sentence of the page you linked above:

The updates-testing repository, also referred to as Test Updates, contains 
updates scheduled to be released for Branched pre-releases (after the Bodhi 
enabling point) and stable releases of Fedora


The point is that your update is not intended to ever make it to the 
stable update, i.e., it is not "scheduled to be released" for anything. 
If I understood correctly, you want people to test the beta version and 
then eventually submit the final release (i.e., not this update) to 
stable. I don't think that's how the updates-testing repository is 
supposed to be used. Instead, it should only contain updates that will 
eventually make it into stable.


Regards,
Till
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org