On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 12:11:50AM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Frank Murphy wrote:
Is not rawhide the sanity check,
Yes.
even if used productively by many?
That's the problem then. Rawhide is explicitly labeled as NOT being intended
nor suitable for any sort of production use.
This
On Sun, 2011-09-11 at 12:18 +0200, Jim Meyering wrote:
I was thinking of something more like make check (that would
run a test suite), or maintainer gives it a spin before releasing.
But maybe something about the maintainer's set-up was different
enough that those tests would all pass.
Few
On Mon, 2011-09-12 at 08:56 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
I thought AutoQA was going to do this, but it's been disappointing.
AutoQA is under active development, still. It's a complex project.
Especially being able to automate this kind of high level functionality
testing is tricky:
I have caused this affair. Sorry about that. Openssh version 5.9 I tested and I
do not understand why the test passed.
And my opinion of defective packages in rawhide?
I used to regularly downgrade sensitive packages when they are in unstable
versions and I consider it a feature rawhide.
Jan
On 09/12/2011 03:28 PM, Jan F. Chadima wrote:
I have caused this affair. Sorry about that. Openssh version 5.9 I tested and
I do not understand why the test passed.
And my opinion of defective packages in rawhide?
I used to regularly downgrade sensitive packages when they are in unstable
Dne 12.9.2011 12:03, Rahul Sundaram napsal(a):
If you maintain any of the critical path packages, it would be very useful
to test them more instead of just a mad version number chase.
Take a deep breath, count to ten, and then repeat to yourself “S..t
happens.” Don’t throw around accusations
On 09/12/2011 03:39 PM, Matej Cepl wrote:
Dne 12.9.2011 12:03, Rahul Sundaram napsal(a):
If you maintain any of the critical path packages, it would be very useful
to test them more instead of just a mad version number chase.
Take a deep breath, count to ten, and then repeat to yourself “S..t
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 01:02:26AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Mon, 2011-09-12 at 08:56 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
I thought AutoQA was going to do this, but it's been disappointing.
AutoQA is under active development, still. It's a complex project.
I hope I can make a
On Sep 12, 2011, at 12:03 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 09/12/2011 03:28 PM, Jan F. Chadima wrote:
I have caused this affair. Sorry about that. Openssh version 5.9 I tested
and I do not understand why the test passed.
And my opinion of defective packages in rawhide?
I used to regularly
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 01:02:26AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Mon, 2011-09-12 at 08:56 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
I thought AutoQA was going to do this, but it's been
disappointing.
I haven't read the whole thread, but I also feel the rate of AutoQA development
is slow.
On 09/12/2011 04:03 PM, Kamil Paral wrote:
I haven't read the whole thread, but I also feel the rate of AutoQA
development is slow. Unfortunately I don't know how to improve that, since
there are just a few people working on it and they are also participating in
release validation testing,
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
If you continue to consider it a feature, it justifies (in your mind)
pushing broken packages into the repository but it does affect release
versions as well because we have to catch and fix bugs much later. If
you maintain any of the critical path packages, it would
Clyde E. Kunkel wrote:
Didn't say like, said similar. Don't you test your changes somehow? Or
do you just toss the mods over the wall and hope for the best? I don't
think so. Share your test cases for those packages that should just
work--not all packages. Forget that the changes are for
On Mon, 2011-09-12 at 13:39 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Clyde E. Kunkel wrote:
Didn't say like, said similar. Don't you test your changes somehow? Or
do you just toss the mods over the wall and hope for the best? I don't
think so. Share your test cases for those packages that should just
On 09/12/2011 07:39 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Clyde E. Kunkel wrote:
Didn't say like, said similar. Don't you test your changes somehow? Or
do you just toss the mods over the wall and hope for the best? I don't
think so. Share your test cases for those packages that should just
work--not
On Mon, 2011-09-12 at 13:37 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
If you continue to consider it a feature, it justifies (in your mind)
pushing broken packages into the repository but it does affect release
versions as well because we have to catch and fix bugs much later. If
Nils Philippsen wrote:
We shouldn't revert to untagging broken packages in Rawhide just to make
it less consequential for people to break stuff. We should revert to
untagging broken packages because bumping epoch is costlier in the long
run as epoch is often disregarded. People using Rawhide
On Mon, 2011-09-12 at 11:17 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 01:02:26AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Mon, 2011-09-12 at 08:56 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
I thought AutoQA was going to do this, but it's been disappointing.
AutoQA is under active
On Mon, 2011-09-12 at 11:48 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
AutoQA is under active development, still. It's a complex project.
I hope I can make a suggestion:
Can we have it so that packagers can commit a file into Fedora git
(eg. autoqa.sh), and have that picked up by AutoQA and run
On Mon, 2011-09-12 at 16:07 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 09/12/2011 04:03 PM, Kamil Paral wrote:
I haven't read the whole thread, but I also feel the rate of AutoQA
development is slow. Unfortunately I don't know how to improve that, since
there are just a few people working on it and
On 09/11/2011 02:13 PM, Frank Murphy wrote:
Is not rawhide the sanity check, even if used productively by many?
Not many and I think the branch being less fragile would certainly
help. If I know my system will still boot and I can access the network
and my browser is enough for me to consider
Frank Murphy wrote:
On 11/09/11 09:33, Jim Meyering wrote:
darrell pfeifer wrote:
Fails for me too, with the same error.
Thanks for confirming that.
I don't mean to be rude or inflammatory, but do have to wonder how such
a fundamentally-broken package was released -- even to rawhide. In
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 09/11/2011 02:13 PM, Frank Murphy wrote:
Is not rawhide the sanity check, even if used productively by many?
Not many and I think the branch being less fragile would certainly
help. If I know my system will still boot and I can access the network
and my browser is
On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 09:43:27 +0100,
Frank Murphy frankl...@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/09/11 09:33, Jim Meyering wrote:
darrell pfeifer wrote:
Fails for me too, with the same error.
Thanks for confirming that.
I don't mean to be rude or inflammatory, but do have to wonder how such
On 09/11/2011 04:33 AM, Jim Meyering wrote:
darrell pfeifer wrote:
Fails for me too, with the same error.
Thanks for confirming that.
I don't mean to be rude or inflammatory, but do have to wonder how such
a fundamentally-broken package was released -- even to rawhide. In the
fedora
On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 12:18:51PM +0200, Jim Meyering wrote:
Frank Murphy wrote:
On 11/09/11 09:33, Jim Meyering wrote:
darrell pfeifer wrote:
Fails for me too, with the same error.
Thanks for confirming that.
I don't mean to be rude or inflammatory, but do have to wonder how such
On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 10:44:35AM -0400, Clyde E. Kunkel wrote:
On 09/11/2011 04:33 AM, Jim Meyering wrote:
darrell pfeifer wrote:
Fails for me too, with the same error.
Thanks for confirming that.
I don't mean to be rude or inflammatory, but do have to wonder how such
a
Frank Murphy wrote:
Is not rawhide the sanity check,
Yes.
even if used productively by many?
That's the problem then. Rawhide is explicitly labeled as NOT being intended
nor suitable for any sort of production use.
Kevin Kofler
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Clyde E. Kunkel wrote:
Maybe there needs to be a classification for rawhide similar to the
karma system for updates-testing, but limited to just a set of packages
that should just always work (maybe openssh would be one). For such
packages, there should be a test validation set that the
Am Montag, den 12.09.2011, 00:19 +0200 schrieb Kevin Kofler:
NO! Just no!
+1000
This karma model doesn't even work well for releases, it'd be completely
insane for Rawhide.
+1000
--
Stefan Held VI has only 2 Modes:
obi unixkiste orgThe first one is
On 09/11/2011 06:19 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Clyde E. Kunkel wrote:
Maybe there needs to be a classification for rawhide similar to the
karma system for updates-testing, but limited to just a set of packages
that should just always work (maybe openssh would be one). For such
packages, there
Clyde E. Kunkel clydekunkel7...@cox.net wrote:
On 09/11/2011 04:33 AM, Jim Meyering wrote:
darrell pfeifer wrote:
Fails for me too, with the same error.
Thanks for confirming that.
I don't mean to be rude or inflammatory, but do have to wonder how such
a fundamentally-broken package
Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote:
Frank Murphy wrote:
Is not rawhide the sanity check,
Yes.
even if used productively by many?
That's the problem then. Rawhide is explicitly labeled as NOT being intended
nor suitable for any sort of production use.
You _need_ people to use
33 matches
Mail list logo
