> I think this should be done.
Thanks, Kevin.
Cheers,
Debarshi
--
One reason that life is complex is that it has a real part and an
imaginary part.
-- Andrew Koenig
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 17:30 -0500, Chris Ball wrote:
> Now, there's a reasonable argument that says that Fedora users without
> FAS accounts didn't vote for FESCo, so it's still legitimate to ask
> *those* users what they think. The impossibility of reaching such a
> group of users without incorp
On Wed, 2010-03-10 at 00:05 +, Jonathan Underwood wrote:
> On 9 March 2010 21:54, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> > ===
> > #fedora-meeting: FESCO (2010-03-09)
> > ===
> >
> >
> > Meeting started by nirik at 20:00:01 UTC. The full logs a
On 03/09/2010 06:56 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Mar 2010 12:21:04 -0500 (EST), Kamil wrote:
> If you - and the QA team - want to expand your testing activities, focus
> on the CRITPATH packages first. Do a good job there. Nobody from QA has
> ever given feedback to any of my updates, a
On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 5:05 PM, Jonathan Underwood
wrote:
> On 9 March 2010 21:54, Bill Nottingham wrote:
>> ===
>> #fedora-meeting: FESCO (2010-03-09)
>> ===
>>
>>
>> Meeting started by nirik at 20:00:01 UTC. The full logs are avail
On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 16:03 -0800, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-03-08 at 14:07 -0700, Pete Zaitcev wrote:
> > On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 22:27:48 -0800
> > Dan Williams wrote:
> >
> > > > > I have taken over the maintainership from Robert, and the new
> > > > > usb_modeswitch rpms are in rawhide n
On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 17:13 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > Some basics I'd propose as a starting point for defining acceptance
> > criteria include:
> >
> > 1. repoclosure/conflicts - no package update can introduce broken
> > deps or conflicts. I'd recommend we apply this to both
>
On Wed, 10 Mar 2010, Jonathan Underwood wrote:
> On 9 March 2010 21:54, Bill Nottingham wrote:
>> ===
>> #fedora-meeting: FESCO (2010-03-09)
>> ===
>>
>>
>> Meeting started by nirik at 20:00:01 UTC. The full logs are available at
>
Am Dienstag, den 09.03.2010, 18:46 -0600 schrieb Mike McGrath:
> On Wed, 10 Mar 2010, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>
> > I've orphaned "taglib" in response to the hostilities found in the
> > FESCo meeting log. Most likely Rex Dieter will pick it up, but I want
> > to let the list know as there are oth
Am Mittwoch, den 10.03.2010, 00:46 + schrieb Peter Boy:
> Am Mittwoch, den 10.03.2010, 00:09 +0100 schrieb Michael Schwendt:
> > I've orphaned "taglib" in response to the hostilities found in the
> > FESCo meeting log. Most likely Rex Dieter will pick it up, but I want
> > to let the list know
Am Mittwoch, den 10.03.2010, 00:09 +0100 schrieb Michael Schwendt:
> I've orphaned "taglib" in response to the hostilities found in the
> FESCo meeting log. Most likely Rex Dieter will pick it up, but I want
> to let the list know as there are other dependencies on it.
Hm, I could find anything sp
On Wed, 10 Mar 2010, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> I've orphaned "taglib" in response to the hostilities found in the
> FESCo meeting log. Most likely Rex Dieter will pick it up, but I want
> to let the list know as there are other dependencies on it.
>
I'm a little confused, this is a punative orpha
On 03/09/2010 04:11 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
> Even if you put an update for N and N-1 in the same form, once you
> submit the request it splits it into two requests, one per Fedora
> release. This means you'd have one set of karma per Fedora release.
Aha, I forgot that. Thanks.
Josh
--
devel
On Tue, 09 Mar 2010 15:43:04 -0500
James Laska wrote:
> We'll make adjustments based on feedback so far. But I want to point
> out that one goal for this policy is to reach consensus on a set of
> criteria that all [1] packages must adhere to in order to be accepted
> as Fedora updates. The imp
On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 16:08 -0800, Josh Stone wrote:
> On 03/09/2010 03:43 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > James Laska wrote:
> >> 3. Package must be newer than previously released versions - can't
> >> ship newer package in N-1.
> >
> > Definitely, but we must make sure that it's still p
On 03/09/2010 03:43 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> James Laska wrote:
>> 3. Package must be newer than previously released versions - can't
>> ship newer package in N-1.
>
> Definitely, but we must make sure that it's still possible to queue the same
> update for N and N-1 at the same tim
On Tue, 9 Mar 2010 10:04:22 +0100
Thomas Janssen wrote:
...snip...
> By the way, is there some
> documentation on how to vote out particular FESCo members and who can
> do it? Just in case one thinks that a particular member of FESCo is
> wrongly voted in. Or is that like with politicians, once
On 9 March 2010 21:54, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> ===
> #fedora-meeting: FESCO (2010-03-09)
> ===
>
>
> Meeting started by nirik at 20:00:01 UTC. The full logs are available at
> http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2010-03-0
On Mon, 8 Mar 2010 19:52:00 +0200
Debarshi Ray wrote:
> I would like to transfer ownership of the libedit package to Kamil
> Dudka (kdudka). I am a bit wary of PackageDB transferring not letting
> me select the new owner. Could someone please take care of it or
> advise what I need to do about th
On Mon, 2010-03-08 at 14:07 -0700, Pete Zaitcev wrote:
> On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 22:27:48 -0800
> Dan Williams wrote:
>
> > > > I have taken over the maintainership from Robert, and the new
> > > > usb_modeswitch rpms are in rawhide now.
> > >
> > > And F-13?
> >
> > I'm pushing for F13 and F12 at
On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 17:19 -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
> If you know which pkgs you've installed that were from updates-testing you
> can run:
>
>
> yumdb set from_repo updates-testing pkg_name
>
> and that should do it.
Yes, that fixed it. So the name has to be "updates-testing" in the repo
f
Am 10.03.2010 00:41, schrieb Rex Dieter:
> LinuxDonald wrote:
>
>
>> Am 10.03.2010 00:12, schrieb Rex Dieter:
>>
>>> LinuxDonald wrote:
>>>
>
>
I need help here too. The problem ist here the cmake don´t compile the
.pc file (pkgconfig file)
And upstream don´t wi
James Laska wrote:
> 3. Package must be newer than previously released versions - can't
> ship newer package in N-1.
Definitely, but we must make sure that it's still possible to queue the same
update for N and N-1 at the same time (= without having to wait for a push
between queuei
LinuxDonald wrote:
> Am 10.03.2010 00:12, schrieb Rex Dieter:
>> LinuxDonald wrote:
>>> I need help here too. The problem ist here the cmake don´t compile the
>>> .pc file (pkgconfig file)
>>> And upstream don´t will fix that :(.
>>>
>> Why not?
> Here is the bug report for that at bul
Am 10.03.2010 00:12, schrieb Rex Dieter:
> LinuxDonald wrote:
>
>
>> I need help here too. The problem ist here the cmake don´t compile the
>> .pc file (pkgconfig file)
>> And upstream don´t will fix that :(.
>>
> Why not?
>
> -- Rex
>
>
Here is the bug report for that at bullet bug t
LinuxDonald wrote:
> I need help here too. The problem ist here the cmake don´t compile the
> .pc file (pkgconfig file)
> And upstream don´t will fix that :(.
Why not?
-- Rex
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
I've orphaned "taglib" in response to the hostilities found in the
FESCo meeting log. Most likely Rex Dieter will pick it up, but I want
to let the list know as there are other dependencies on it.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/
Till Maas wrote:
> You need to update packages from updates-testing first and then it's
> useful to run it. Please look at the wiki for example output.
Would your script break, say, if he was using the bodhi-client from
updates-testing that is broken?
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedorapro
On 03/10/2010 03:53 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>
> I would prefer to see something in action first. Proof of concept.
> A demonstration of how it improves update quality.
>
That's exactly why my proposal calls for it to be enforced on critical
path packages first. I don't specify point detai
I need help here too. The problem ist here the cmake don´t compile the
.pc file (pkgconfig file)
And upstream don´t will fix that :(.
I have talked about this with cwickert and he have said it is patchable
but he don´t have the time to make it.
Can any other please help me?
https://bugzilla.redh
On Tue, 9 Mar 2010 16:54:16 -0500, Bill wrote:
> 20:59:11 Kevin_Kofler: i dont see Michael Schwendt as infulencial.
> he choose to largely abstain from fedora years ago
>
Huh? Now, what exactly is your problem with me?
What the heck are you referring to?
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedo
Hi,
> Yes, anonymous polling is liking playing with fire. Let me throw
> this out there -- for a *first* run -- you could only allow FAS
> accounts to take the survey. That would really narrow your
> demographics to only contributors, which is what you wish to see.
If we're trying to
On Tue, Mar 09, 2010 at 12:07:20 -0500,
Al Dunsmuir wrote:
>
> To some extent, I view my current contribution to Fedora as being
> unreasonable and insisting that it be able to perform basic server
> tasks reasonably for a small home system. If it can't do that, why
> would I bel
On Tue, Mar 09, 2010 at 09:57:15 -0500,
Al Dunsmuir wrote:
>
> I prefer to work on the server in X. The massive X changes over the
> last few releases introduced problems were for a good cause (but at
> the time were painful). I expect that to be fairly settled down, as I
> don't run any
On 09/03/10 23:07, Athmane Madjoudj wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 10:34 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>> On 03/10/2010 03:05 AM, Brian C. Huffman wrote:
>>> All,
>>>
>>> I'm curious why Fedora chose to include Zarafa as opposed to other
>>> (mostly) opensource groupware solutions?
>>>
>>> Ones that
On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 02:47:45 +0530, Rahul wrote:
> On 03/10/2010 02:47 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> >
> > On purpose. I didn't have any comments on them.
> >
>
> I assume then you don't have any criticism of the proposal since you can
> just assume the second part as a pointer to
>
> http://
On 03/10/2010 03:32 AM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
>
> This breaks any attempt at embargos and coordinated security updates -
> or, at the very least, includes rel-eng (how many people? who exactly?)
> in the very small set of people that would otherwise have to know about
> the embargoed update.
>
On Tue, 9 Mar 2010, Till Maas wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 09, 2010 at 03:42:19PM -0600, Mike Chambers wrote:
>> On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 14:06 +0100, Thomas Spura wrote:
>>> Am Dienstag, den 09.03.2010, 07:50 -0500 schrieb Stephen Gallagher:
On 03/06/2010 05:21 PM, Till Maas wrote:
> [0] https://
On Tue, Mar 09, 2010 at 12:30:32 -0500,
Seth Vidal wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 9 Mar 2010, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
>
> > Seth Vidal wrote:
> >> you have been on websites that allow anonymous posting, right? You know
> >> what happens to them?
> >
> > Yes, anonymous polling is liking playing with
On Tue, Mar 09, 2010 at 07:50:43AM -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> Given the obvious utility of this script, can we get it added to the
> fedora-packager package? It doesn't make a lot of sense to have
> developers downloading a script off a wiki to use this.
It's (going to be) in the fedora-pa
On Tue, Mar 09, 2010 at 03:42:19PM -0600, Mike Chambers wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 14:06 +0100, Thomas Spura wrote:
> > Am Dienstag, den 09.03.2010, 07:50 -0500 schrieb Stephen Gallagher:
> > > On 03/06/2010 05:21 PM, Till Maas wrote:
> > > > [0] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Easy_Karma
On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 10:34 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 03/10/2010 03:05 AM, Brian C. Huffman wrote:
>> All,
>>
>> I'm curious why Fedora chose to include Zarafa as opposed to other
>> (mostly) opensource groupware solutions?
>>
>> Ones that come to mind: Scalix, Open-Exchange, Zimbra.
>
> Som
Hello,
Rahul Sundaram píše v St 10. 03. 2010 v 00:52 +0530:
> For critical path packages
> (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Critical_Path_Packages) :
> * Must go through updates testing repository even for security fixes
> Rationale: Expedited security fixes have caused some serious regressions
>
On Tue, Mar 09, 2010 at 08:55:25PM +0100, Christoph Wickert wrote:
> We are talking a lot about update policies recently. While I do (mostly)
> agree with those who suggested a more conservative approach, I wonder
> what will then happen to packages that actually *need* regular updates.
>
Talking a
On Tue, Mar 09, 2010 at 04:35:50PM -0500, Brian C. Huffman wrote:
> I'm curious why Fedora chose to include Zarafa as opposed to other (mostly)
> opensource groupware solutions?
> Ones that come to mind: Scalix, Open-Exchange, Zimbra.
Because Someone Stepped Up And Did It. There's no big conspira
On Wed, 2010-03-10 at 03:04 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 03/10/2010 03:05 AM, Brian C. Huffman wrote:
> > All,
> >
> > I'm curious why Fedora chose to include Zarafa as opposed to other
> > (mostly) opensource groupware solutions?
> >
> > Ones that come to mind: Scalix, Open-Exchange, Zimbra.
On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 14:06 +0100, Thomas Spura wrote:
> Am Dienstag, den 09.03.2010, 07:50 -0500 schrieb Stephen Gallagher:
> > On 03/06/2010 05:21 PM, Till Maas wrote:
> > > [0] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Easy_Karma
> >
> >
> > Given the obvious utility of this script, can we get it
On 03/10/2010 03:05 AM, Brian C. Huffman wrote:
> All,
>
> I'm curious why Fedora chose to include Zarafa as opposed to other
> (mostly) opensource groupware solutions?
>
> Ones that come to mind: Scalix, Open-Exchange, Zimbra.
Some contributors interested in Zarafa are now maintaining it in the
F
All,
I'm curious why Fedora chose to include Zarafa as opposed to other (mostly)
opensource groupware solutions?
Ones that come to mind: Scalix, Open-Exchange, Zimbra.
Thanks,
Brian
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 10:09:17AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-03-06 at 20:07 +0100, Till Maas wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 08:14:38AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 13:27 +0100, Till Maas wrote:
> > >
> > > > Especially it needs to be made sure th
On 03/10/2010 02:47 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>
> On purpose. I didn't have any comments on them.
>
I assume then you don't have any criticism of the proposal since you can
just assume the second part as a pointer to
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_update_guidelines
Rahul
--
devel m
On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 02:40:31 +0530, Rahul wrote:
> On 03/10/2010 02:35 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> >
> > Again just a different wording of the existing Update Guidelines.
> >
>
> You left out the important parts which are about critical path packages.
On purpose. I didn't have any comments
On 03/10/2010 02:35 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>
> Again just a different wording of the existing Update Guidelines.
>
You left out the important parts which are about critical path packages.
Rahul
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/l
On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 00:52:38 +0530, Rahul wrote:
> Non-critical path packages
>
> * Don't blindly push every upstream release as update
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_update_guidelines
plus
A packager who "blindly pushes every upstream release as update"
apparently has forgotten to do th
Ralf Corsepius writes:
> => All you're going to see is further bureaucracy and bureaucratic
> overhead, but you'r not going to see better package quality.
Precisely. Who knows the package best? The packagers. If so why there
is someone else to decide (karma, the system, whoever)? This is insane
Hello Krzysztof,
Tuesday, March 9, 2010, 3:36:43 PM, you wrote:
> Matthew Garrett writes:
>> 2) It is impossible to ensure that functionality will not be reduced
>> without sufficient testing.
> True.
The whole point of an update may be the deliberate removal of
features/functionalit
Compose started at Tue Mar 9 09:15:13 UTC 2010
Broken deps for i386
--
blahtexml-0.6-5.fc12.i686 requires libxerces-c.so.28
doodle-0.6.7-5.fc12.i686 requires libextractor.so.1
easystroke-0.5.2-1.fc13.i686 requires lib
On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 19:50 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Adam Williamson wrote:
> > The proposal isn't really about expanding testing activities, it's about
> > formally codifying how the updates process is actually supposed to work.
> > Right now, we don't in fact define how the Fedora update proc
Matthew Garrett writes:
> 2) It is impossible to ensure that functionality will not be reduced
> without sufficient testing.
True.
> 3) Sufficient testing of software inherently requires manual
> intervention by more than one individual.
Definitely. IOW, the testing is never sufficient.
> 1)
On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 15:28 -0500, Al Dunsmuir wrote:
> > What Bill's talking about when he refers to 'autoqa tests' are generic
> > tests which are concerned with package quality, not really the software
> > in the package: stuff like do the dependencies work, are there any clear
> > errors in th
Am 09.03.2010 21:24, schrieb LinuxDonald:
> Need help with this FTBFS fife bug. It don´t find boost for compiling.
> But with F-13 ist works not in devel (F-14)
>
> Can anyone please help to find out why please?
>
Here is the bug link that i forgot
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi
On Tuesday, March 9, 2010, 3:20:25 PM, Adam Willamson wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 15:13 -0500, Al Dunsmuir wrote:
>> > 1) All updates (even security) must pass AutoQA tests.
>> > Rationale: If a package breaks dependencies, does not install, or
>> > fails other obvious tests, it should not be
Need help with this FTBFS fife bug. It don´t find boost for compiling.
But with F-13 ist works not in devel (F-14)
Can anyone please help to find out why please?
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Hello James,
Tuesday, March 9, 2010, 2:53:22 PM, you wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 13:41 -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 9 Mar 2010, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>>
>> > If you - and the QA team - want to expand your testing activities, focus
>> > on the CRITPATH packages first. Do a good jo
On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 15:13 -0500, Al Dunsmuir wrote:
> > 1) All updates (even security) must pass AutoQA tests.
> > Rationale: If a package breaks dependencies, does not install, or
> > fails other obvious tests, it should not be pushed. Period. Obviously,
> > this proposal would not be enacted u
On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 14:10 -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote:
>
>
> Proposal
>
> Comments, questions, reasoned arguments? Part of me wonders if this should be
> expanded with a sliding scale for update types (enhancements, for example, get
> more stringent treatment than bugfix/security
On Tuesday, March 9, 2010, 2:49:00 PM, Dan Horák wrote:
> Thanks Bill, this proposal is very similar to my "dump of ideas" posted
> earlier today. The only thing I would like to improve (probably in
> PackageKit) is the presentation of the content in updates-testing to the
> users, to make it more
On Tuesday, March 9, 2010, 2:10:04 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> However, I do wonder about some of the concerns about this being
> a requirement for all packages. So, here's a counter-proposal/expansion.
> If need be, each of these policies could be considered separately, although
> they do stack
On Mon, 2010-03-08 at 23:57 -0500, Jon Masters wrote:
> I will propose this to FESCo through their normal channels.
>
> My proposal is that we create a "Fedora User Survey" and create a link
> on the fp.o website with a few very simple questions. One of those
> questions would be what users think
On 03/10/2010 01:24 AM, James Laska wrote:
>
> Just a heads up. AutoQA describes the framework. We'll need to be more
> specific about what tests we'd want AutoQA to execute against the
> updates.
>
Sure but I don't know all the details and I am not trying to cover
everything but provide the
We are talking a lot about update policies recently. While I do (mostly)
agree with those who suggested a more conservative approach, I wonder
what will then happen to packages that actually *need* regular updates.
Let me give you two examples:
1. openal-soft: Is under steady development and i
On 03/10/2010 01:12 AM, Michał Piotrowski wrote:
>
> Let's consider a case - there is a giant hole in kernel - and there is
> a remote exploit somewhere in the wild. Do we want to wait a few days
> or so when package will go through updates-testing? There should be an
> exception to this rule for f
On Wed, 2010-03-10 at 00:52 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Since it is the fav season for proposals apparently, let me throw in my
> Fedora/hat in the ring too. This only applies to updates to general
> releases.
>
> For critical path packages
> (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Critical_Pat
On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 13:41 -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
>
> On Tue, 9 Mar 2010, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>
> > If you - and the QA team - want to expand your testing activities, focus
> > on the CRITPATH packages first. Do a good job there. Nobody from QA has
> > ever given feedback to any of my upda
Bill Nottingham píše v Út 09. 03. 2010 v 14:10 -0500:
> Matthew Garrett (mj...@srcf.ucam.org) said:
> > Introduction
> >
> >
> > We assume the following axioms:
> >
> > 1) Updates to stable that result in any reduction of functionality to
> > the user are unacceptable.
> >
> > 2)
ev/modules/etc.
> > but also GNOME, cups, and other things I use each day.
>
> Right, the critical path package list does contain the GNOME stack, cups-libs,
> etc.
>
> http://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org/mash/rawhide-20100309/logs/critpath.txt
So then great. I thought a lo
On Tue, Mar 09, 2010 at 02:10:04PM -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> 2) Updates that constitute a part of the 'important' package set (defined
> below) must follow the rules as defined for critical path packages for
> pending releases, meaning that they require positive karma from releng
> and/or QA
Hi,
2010/3/9 Rahul Sundaram :
> Hi,
>
> Since it is the fav season for proposals apparently, let me throw in my
> Fedora/hat in the ring too. This only applies to updates to general
> releases.
>
> For critical path packages
> (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Critical_Path_Packages) :
>
> * Must go
On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 14:10 -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Proposal
>
>
> For a package to be pushed to the stable updates repository, it must
> meet the following criteria.
>
> 1) All updates (even security) must pass AutoQA tests.
>
> Rationale: If a package breaks dependencies, doe
On 03/09/2010 02:10 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Matthew Garrett (mj...@srcf.ucam.org) said:
>> Introduction
>>
>>
>> We assume the following axioms:
>>
>> 1) Updates to stable that result in any reduction of functionality to
>> the user are unacceptable.
>>
>> 2) It is impossible to
Hi,
Since it is the fav season for proposals apparently, let me throw in my
Fedora/hat in the ring too. This only applies to updates to general
releases.
For critical path packages
(http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Critical_Path_Packages) :
* Must go through updates-testing repository
* Only majo
On Tue, Mar 09, 2010 at 07:38:44PM +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Tue, 09 Mar 2010 10:12:41 -0800, Adam wrote:
>
> > Please provide details on what's mad about Kamil's proposal.
>
> Here:
>
> | The package updates must spend at least 14 days [1] in the
> | 'updates-testing' repository, or a
On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 11:00 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > It isn't a snapshot of how it works currently, though.
>
> It's fairly close. As far as I can see, all it intentionally changes
> from the current process is that it provides a review point prior to
> acceptance into -testing.
Additi
Matthew Garrett (mj...@srcf.ucam.org) said:
> Introduction
>
>
> We assume the following axioms:
>
> 1) Updates to stable that result in any reduction of functionality to
> the user are unacceptable.
>
> 2) It is impossible to ensure that functionality will not be reduced
> witho
if KDE is updated 20 times a week, or about other
>packages that aren't installed by default being rebased often.
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/mash/rawhide-20100309/logs/critpath.txt
josh
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On 03/09/2010 11:45 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Jesse Keating wrote:
>> Slight variation on this. All builds from devel/ (or master in the new
>> git world) would go to the koji tag dist-rawhide-candidate. Builds
>> which are tagged with dist-rawhide-candidate trigger AutoQA tests, of
>> the nature
On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 13:48 -0500, Jon Masters wrote:
>
> That is an acceptable fallback. But just for the record, I consider
> the
> critical path on my desktop to include not just
> kernel/udev/modules/etc.
> but also GNOME, cups, and other things I use each day. I don't
> personally care if KDE
y care if KDE is updated 20 times a week, or about other
> packages that aren't installed by default being rebased often.
The current critical path does include most of that. You can see the
current critpath list at:
http://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org/mash/rawhide-20100309/logs/critpath.txt
I
On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 19:41 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> * Your proposal is doing much more than just banning pushing directly to
> stable (which by its own would already be annoying enough).
>
Actually his proposal would allow for pushing directly to stable,
provided the update ticket got enoug
l path package list does contain the GNOME stack, cups-libs,
etc.
http://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org/mash/rawhide-20100309/logs/critpath.txt
luke
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 19:38 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > Please provide details on what's mad about Kamil's proposal.
>
> Here:
>
> | The package updates must spend at least 14 days [1] in the
> | 'updates-testing' repository, or at least 7 days [1] provided they have
> | karma of at least
Adam Williamson wrote:
> The proposal isn't really about expanding testing activities, it's about
> formally codifying how the updates process is actually supposed to work.
> Right now, we don't in fact define how the Fedora update process is
> supposed to work: how updates get submitted, how they
On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 19:39 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Jesse Keating wrote:
> > Yes, you bear some risk in using rawhide. There is no reward without
> > risk. We can mitigate some of that risk by placing automated testing
> > between the builds and the users. Some reduction in risk is far bett
Hello Michael,
Tuesday, March 9, 2010, 1:23:59 PM, you wrote:
>> On Tue, 9 Mar 2010 13:08:48 -0500, Al wrote:
>> I want more updates. I want them to be more frequent, incremental and
>> each reasonably well tested. Trying to do too many changes at a time
>> not only leads to an increased lik
Luke Macken wrote:
> For example, the kernel maintainers disable karma automation entirely, and
> one could argue that this flexibility is important.
We also systematically disable karma automatism for KDE updates. We found
the numeric karma to be a very poor indicator of the quality of the updat
Jesse Keating wrote:
> Yes, you bear some risk in using rawhide. There is no reward without
> risk. We can mitigate some of that risk by placing automated testing
> between the builds and the users. Some reduction in risk is far better
> than no reduction is it not? Would it not be nice to see
On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 12:26 -0500, Luke Macken wrote:
> I think a much better solution would be to require similar critical path
> policies, across *all* releases, not just pending ones, while still
> allowing non-critpath packages to go directly to stable.
That is an acceptable fallback. But jus
On Tue, Mar 09, 2010 at 07:30:10PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > Contrary to the assertion in the meeting, udisks has not removed polling
> > support.
>
> Sorry, but that's the impression we got from this mail:
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/devkit-devel/2010-Jan
Matthew Garrett wrote:
> As I've said elsewhere, this is a problem that needs solving. But I
> don't believe that it's a problem that's best solved by allowing people
> to push directly to stable.
* What other solution do you propose?
* Your proposal is doing much more than just banning pushing di
On Tue, 9 Mar 2010, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> If you - and the QA team - want to expand your testing activities, focus
> on the CRITPATH packages first. Do a good job there. Nobody from QA has
> ever given feedback to any of my updates, and it won't happen in the
> future either.
I would not b
1 - 100 of 235 matches
Mail list logo
