Fedora 42 Beta Freeze and Bodhi updates-testing activation point

Hi all, Today's an important day on the Fedora Linux 42 schedule [1], with several significant cut-offs. First of all, today is the Bodhi updates-testing activation point [2]. That means that from now all Fedora Linux 42 packages must be submitted to updates-testing and pass the rel

[Test-Announce]Fedora Linux 41 Bodhi updates-testing activation & Beta freeze

Hi all, Today's an important day on the Fedora Linux 41 schedule [1], with several significant cut-offs. First, today is the Bodhi updates-testing activation point [2]. That means that from now on, all Fedora Linux 41 packages must be submitted for updates-testing and pass the rel

Fedora Linux 40 Bodhi updates-testing activation & Beta freeze

Hi all, Today's an important day on the Fedora Linux f40 schedule [1], with several significant cut-offs. First of all, today is the Bodhi updates-testing activation point [2]. That means that from now all Fedora Linux 40 packages must be submitted to updates-testing and pass the rel

Re: Automatic check for bodhi updates not to break RPM dependencies

On Tue, 2023-11-07 at 15:20 +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote: > On 07. 11. 23 12:17, Sandro Mani wrote: > > Hi > > > > Due to an unfortunate oversight of an incorrect branch merge a couple of > > months > > ago, a recently backported security fix caused an unwanted gdal soname bump > > in > > F37, du

Re: Automatic check for bodhi updates not to break RPM dependencies

On Tue, Nov 07, 2023 at 04:20:52PM +0100, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: > Miro Hrončok wrote: > > this is not the first time I saw a bodhi update that breaks dozens of > > dependencies, goes unnoticed for a week and is automatically pushed > > stable, only to discover many packages fail to instal

Re: Automatic check for bodhi updates not to break RPM dependencies

Miro Hrončok wrote: > this is not the first time I saw a bodhi update that breaks dozens of > dependencies, goes unnoticed for a week and is automatically pushed > stable, only to discover many packages fail to install. The most important measure would be to abolish automatic pushes. This update

Automatic check for bodhi updates not to break RPM dependencies

On 07. 11. 23 12:17, Sandro Mani wrote: Hi Due to an unfortunate oversight of an incorrect branch merge a couple of months ago, a recently backported security fix caused an unwanted gdal soname bump in F37, due to an update from the 3.5.x series to the 3.6.x series. I'm preparing a gdal-3.6.

Fedora Linux 39 Bodhi updates-testing activation & Beta freeze

Hi all, Today's an important day on the Fedora Linux 39 schedule [1], with several significant cut-offs. First of all, today is the Bodhi updates-testing activation point [2]. That means that from now all Fedora Linux 39 packages must be submitted to updates-testing and pass the rel

Re: Old stalled bodhi updates

On Wednesday, 31 May 2023 at 09:08, Mattia Verga via devel wrote: > Il 30/05/23 22:15, Adam Williamson ha scritto: > > > > https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-f563346d4d is > > similar, but this time it was ejected from its push *to stable* (not to > > testing), again allegedly for

Re: Old stalled bodhi updates

Il 30/05/23 22:15, Adam Williamson ha scritto: > > https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-2b17e1e469 is stuck > because it was ejected from its initial push to testing, > which means the 7 day push to stable timer never really kicks in > (it needs to be *in testing* for seven days). I

Re: Old stalled bodhi updates

Il 30/05/23 22:15, Adam Williamson ha scritto: > > https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-f563346d4d is > similar, but this time it was ejected from its push *to stable* (not to > testing), again allegedly for a missing tag. The builds have now > actually been deleted(!), so that updat

Re: Old stalled bodhi updates

On Tue, May 30, 2023 at 4:16 PM Adam Williamson wrote: > On Tue, 2023-05-30 at 21:52 +0200, Mikel Olasagasti wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > There are currently 157 updates in testing or pending status in Bodhi > > that were created before 2023: > > > > > https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/?searc

Re: Old stalled bodhi updates

On Tue, 2023-05-30 at 16:45 -0700, Brian C. Lane wrote: > On Tue, May 30, 2023 at 01:15:08PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > > > https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-bf8feea173 > > Thanks for the heads up, I don't see anything in the UI allowing me to > rerun the test (or waive it,

Re: Old stalled bodhi updates

On Tue, 2023-05-30 at 16:45 -0700, Brian C. Lane wrote: > On Tue, May 30, 2023 at 01:15:08PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > > > https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-bf8feea173 > > Thanks for the heads up, I don't see anything in the UI allowing me to > rerun the test (or waive it,

Re: Old stalled bodhi updates

On Tue, May 30, 2023 at 01:15:08PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-bf8feea173 Thanks for the heads up, I don't see anything in the UI allowing me to rerun the test (or waive it, but I'd rather see the logs from the failure first). Not sure what

Re: Old stalled bodhi updates

On Tue, May 30, 2023 at 09:52:11PM +0200, Mikel Olasagasti wrote: > Hi all, > > There are currently 157 updates in testing or pending status in Bodhi > that were created before 2023: > > https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/?search=&submitted_before=2023&status=pending&status=testing&page=1 >

Re: Old stalled bodhi updates

On Tue, 2023-05-30 at 21:52 +0200, Mikel Olasagasti wrote: > Hi all, > > There are currently 157 updates in testing or pending status in Bodhi > that were created before 2023: > > https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/?search=&submitted_before=2023&status=pending&status=testing&page=1 > > Ther

Old stalled bodhi updates

Hi all, There are currently 157 updates in testing or pending status in Bodhi that were created before 2023: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/?search=&submitted_before=2023&status=pending&status=testing&page=1 There are 7 Fedora updates, 6 for Fedora-37 and one in pending->testing status

[Test-Announce] Fedora 37 Bodhi updates-testing activation and Beta Freeze

Hi all, Today's an important day on the Fedora 37 schedule[1], with several significant cut-offs. First of all, today is the Bodhi updates-testing activation point [2]. That means that from now all Fedora 37 packages must be submitted to updates-testing and pass the relevant requireme

Re: Packit automates Koji Builds and Bodhi updates

On 06. 05. 22 18:18, Tomas Tomecek wrote: On Fri, May 6, 2022 at 5:54 PM Miro Hrončok > wrote: On 06. 05. 22 17:37, Frantisek Lachman wrote: The problem is I have not explicitly opted in yet I am afraid this will block my work. Before a more robust so

Re: Packit automates Koji Builds and Bodhi updates

On Fri, May 6, 2022 at 5:54 PM Miro Hrončok wrote: > On 06. 05. 22 17:37, Frantisek Lachman wrote: > > The problem is I have not explicitly opted in yet I am afraid this will > block > my work. Before a more robust solution is found, please at least provide > me a > way how I can temporarily disa

Re: Packit automates Koji Builds and Bodhi updates

this > (if it does not require a config config file in upstream). The command > could > even allow passing some options in the future (for setting unusual karma > limits, etc.) > This sounds like a great addition! I personally adore the full automation and the fact that we don't ne

Re: Packit automates Koji Builds and Bodhi updates

On 06. 05. 22 17:37, Frantisek Lachman wrote: On Fri, May 6, 2022 at 4:12 PM Miro Hrončok wrote: That is the case for any rebuilds that happen in side tags. Most recently e.g. the boost rebuilds. Sometimes, maintainers do that for their own packages as well, but provenpackagers do that at larg

Re: Packit automates Koji Builds and Bodhi updates

On Fri, May 6, 2022 at 4:12 PM Miro Hrončok wrote: > > That is the case for any rebuilds that happen in side tags. Most recently e.g. > the boost rebuilds. Sometimes, maintainers do that for their own packages as > well, but provenpackagers do that at larger scale. For Python packages, > that'll

Re: Packit automates Koji Builds and Bodhi updates

On Fri, May 6, 2022 at 2:21 PM Miro Hrončok wrote: > On 06. 05. 22 11:06, Frantisek Lachman wrote: > > You can also check the activities of the packit FAS user in Koji > > (https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/userinfo?userID=4641 > > ) or

Re: Packit automates Koji Builds and Bodhi updates

On 06. 05. 22 15:50, Frantisek Lachman wrote: Hi Miro, 👋 that's a really valid point that we should somehow resolve. Is this always the case with the mass rebuilds that they should be left unbuilt or just with your Python rebuilds? That is the case for any rebuilds that happen in side tags

Re: Packit automates Koji Builds and Bodhi updates

Yes, sure. Thanks for the example. František On Fri, May 6, 2022 at 2:21 PM Miro Hrončok wrote: > On 06. 05. 22 11:06, Frantisek Lachman wrote: > > You can also check the activities of the packit FAS user in Koji > > (https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/userinfo?userID=4641 > >

Re: Packit automates Koji Builds and Bodhi updates

On Fri, May 6, 2022 at 3:51 PM Frantisek Lachman wrote: > > Hi Miro, > > that's a really valid point that we should somehow resolve. Is this always > the case with the mass rebuilds that they should be left unbuilt or just with > your Python rebuilds? > > I am thinking about multiple options her

Re: Packit automates Koji Builds and Bodhi updates

Hi Miro, that's a really valid point that we should somehow resolve. Is this always the case with the mass rebuilds that they should be left unbuilt or just with your Python rebuilds? I am thinking about multiple options here: 1) configurable allow-list / block list for committers (for the user

Re: Packit automates Koji Builds and Bodhi updates

On 06. 05. 22 11:06, Frantisek Lachman wrote: You can also check the activities of the packit FAS user in Koji (https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/userinfo?userID=4641 ) or Bodhi ( https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/users/packit

Re: Packit automates Koji Builds and Bodhi updates

On 06. 05. 22 11:06, Frantisek Lachman wrote: Hello all, You might have heard some rumours that the Packit team is working on automation for downstream activities you need to do when working on a new release of a package to Fedora. And the rumours are true – I am really pleased to announce th

Packit automates Koji Builds and Bodhi updates

Hello all, You might have heard some rumours that the Packit team is working on automation for downstream activities you need to do when working on a new release of a package to Fedora. And the rumours are true – I am really pleased to announce that Packit now covers the whole workflow from upstre

Re: Fedora 36 Bodhi updates-testing Activation and Beta Freeze

On Tue, 2022-02-22 at 14:34 +0100, Tomas Hrcka wrote: > Hi all, > > Today's an important day on the Fedora 36 schedule[1], with several > significant cut-offs. First of all, today is the Bodhi updates-testing > activation point [2]. That means that from now all Fedora 3

Fedora 36 Bodhi updates-testing Activation and Beta Freeze

Hi all, Today's an important day on the Fedora 36 schedule[1], with several significant cut-offs. First of all, today is the Bodhi updates-testing activation point [2]. That means that from now all Fedora 36 packages must be submitted to updates-testing and pass the relevant requireme

Re: bodhi updates skipping updates-testing entirely

Fabio Valentini wrote: > This sounds like you didn't read my whole post. > Because I don't want to make updates going from "pending -> stable" > directly impossible, Well, several of the people who replied do want that, if I understand their replies correctly. I think your original proposal that

Re: bodhi updates skipping updates-testing entirely

On Sun, Oct 17, 2021 at 3:08 AM Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: > > Fabio Valentini wrote: > > There seems to be some inconsistency with how our update workflow > > currently works. When an update gets enough positive karma "pre-push" > > (still in "pending → testing" state) so that it can be pushed

Re: bodhi updates skipping updates-testing entirely

Fabio Valentini wrote: > There seems to be some inconsistency with how our update workflow > currently works. When an update gets enough positive karma "pre-push" > (still in "pending → testing" state) so that it can be pushed to > stable, bodhi changes its state to ("pending → stable"), making it

Re: bodhi updates skipping updates-testing entirely

Hi Fabio, Fabio Valentini writes: > So, I wonder, should updates always be allowed to skip being in the > "updates-testing" repository entirely? There's probably good reasons > for it sometimes (for example, time-critical security updates, i.e. > firefox, kernel, etc.), but in the general case,

Re: bodhi updates skipping updates-testing entirely

On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 10:49 AM Miro Hrončok wrote: > > On 12. 10. 21 10:35, Fabio Valentini wrote: > > Hi everybody, > > > > There seems to be some inconsistency with how our update workflow > > currently works. When an update gets enough positive karma "pre-push" > > (still in "pending → testin

Re: bodhi updates skipping updates-testing entirely

Understood. Filed a bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2013168#c1. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject

Re: bodhi updates skipping updates-testing entirely

On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 9:48 AM Artem Tim wrote: > > Noticed this a long time ago when in freeze stage and this could a serious > issue sometimes. BTW please push flatpak 1.12.1 update to Stable manually > since people still complain and stuck with 1.12.0. This is not a place to request random

Re: bodhi updates skipping updates-testing entirely

On 12. 10. 21 10:35, Fabio Valentini wrote: Hi everybody, There seems to be some inconsistency with how our update workflow currently works. When an update gets enough positive karma "pre-push" (still in "pending → testing" state) so that it can be pushed to stable, bodhi changes its state to ("

Re: bodhi updates skipping updates-testing entirely

Noticed this a long time ago when in freeze stage and this could a serious issue sometimes. BTW please push flatpak 1.12.1 update to Stable manually since people still complain and stuck with 1.12.0. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.o

bodhi updates skipping updates-testing entirely

Hi everybody, There seems to be some inconsistency with how our update workflow currently works. When an update gets enough positive karma "pre-push" (still in "pending → testing" state) so that it can be pushed to stable, bodhi changes its state to ("pending → stable"), making it skip the "update

Re: Fedora 35 Bodhi updates-testing Activation and Beta Freeze

On Wed, Aug 25, 2021 at 12:58 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote: > On Wed, Aug 25, 2021 at 07:43:46AM -0500, Richard Shaw wrote: > > Are all updates paused or just f35? > > > > I have updates pending from f33 through f35 for over 20 hours. > > During freezes this is a manual process. > > I didn't push them ye

Re: Fedora 35 Bodhi updates-testing Activation and Beta Freeze

On Wed, Aug 25, 2021 at 07:43:46AM -0500, Richard Shaw wrote: > Are all updates paused or just f35? > > I have updates pending from f33 through f35 for over 20 hours. During freezes this is a manual process. I didn't push them yesterday, but will do so here in a few. :) Sorry for any delay.

Re: Fedora 35 Bodhi updates-testing Activation and Beta Freeze

Are all updates paused or just f35? I have updates pending from f33 through f35 for over 20 hours. Thanks, Richard ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of

Fedora 35 Bodhi updates-testing Activation and Beta Freeze

Hi all, Today's an important day on the Fedora 35 schedule[1], with several significant cut-offs. First of all, today is the Bodhi updates-testing activation point [2]. That means that from now all Fedora 35 packages must be submitted to updates-testing and pass the relevant requireme

Fedora 34 Bodhi updates-testing Activation and Beta Freeze

Hi all, Today's an important day on the Fedora 34 schedule[1], with several significant cut-offs. First of all today is the Bodhi updates-testing activation point [2]. That means that from now all Fedora 34 packages must be submitted to updates-testing and pass the relevant requirements[3] b

Re: bodhi updates stuck in "pending" state

Il 13/10/20 12:11, Clement Verna ha scritto: > Once this [0] is merged and deployed you should have access ;-) > > [0] - https://pagure.io/fedora-infra/ansible/pull-request/284 > >> Oh, thanks! I did not receive any notification about that, even if I was mentioned in your comment... another thin

Re: bodhi updates stuck in "pending" state

On Tue, 13 Oct 2020 at 11:34, Mattia Verga via devel < devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote: > Il 12/10/20 19:54, Kevin Fenzi ha scritto: > > > >> Please see my post from a couple of weeks ago: > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/DHLKVLQV2IIB3AGURZ

Re: bodhi updates stuck in "pending" state

Il 12/10/20 19:54, Kevin Fenzi ha scritto: > >> Please see my post from a couple of weeks ago: >> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/DHLKVLQV2IIB3AGURZ5V37Y2AK2YWSTH/ >> >> Many of those stuck updates have no builds associated, therefore they are >

Re: bodhi updates stuck in "pending" state

o da ProtonMail mobile > > Messaggio originale > On 12 Ott 2020, 01:03, Kevin Fenzi ha scritto: > > > On Sun, Oct 11, 2020 at 11:03:56PM +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote: > >> Hi everybody, > >> > >> To me, it looks like some recent bodhi

Re: bodhi updates stuck in "pending" state

- Messaggio originale On 12 Ott 2020, 01:03, Kevin Fenzi ha scritto: > On Sun, Oct 11, 2020 at 11:03:56PM +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote: >> Hi everybody, >> >> To me, it looks like some recent bodhi updates are stuck in "pending" >> unintentionally. This mi

Re: bodhi updates stuck in "pending" state

On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 1:04 AM Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > On Sun, Oct 11, 2020 at 11:03:56PM +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote: > > Hi everybody, > > > > To me, it looks like some recent bodhi updates are stuck in "pending" > > unintentionally. This might be the re

Re: bodhi updates stuck in "pending" state

On Sun, Oct 11, 2020 at 11:03:56PM +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote: > Hi everybody, > > To me, it looks like some recent bodhi updates are stuck in "pending" > unintentionally. This might be the result of a bodhi bug that let > release branch updates created from side tags

Re: bodhi updates stuck in "pending" state

On Sun, Oct 11, 2020 at 11:46 PM Richard Shaw wrote: > > On Sun, Oct 11, 2020 at 4:04 PM Fabio Valentini wrote: >> >> Hi everybody, >> >> To me, it looks like some recent bodhi updates are stuck in "pending" >> unintentionally. This might be the re

Re: bodhi updates stuck in "pending" state

On Sun, Oct 11, 2020 at 4:04 PM Fabio Valentini wrote: > Hi everybody, > > To me, it looks like some recent bodhi updates are stuck in "pending" > unintentionally. This might be the result of a bodhi bug that let > release branch updates created from side tags sit in

bodhi updates stuck in "pending" state

Hi everybody, To me, it looks like some recent bodhi updates are stuck in "pending" unintentionally. This might be the result of a bodhi bug that let release branch updates created from side tags sit in "pending" without ever going into "testing" state without manual

Re: What to do when packagers "forget" bodhi updates for branched (f32)?

Il 16/03/20 21:30, Fabio Valentini ha scritto: > > Any suggestions what we could do to make sure f32 updates aren't > forgotten after the beta freeze? > Ideally, I think that Bodhi should not allow someone to create an update with a build which nvr is higher than what is available in a later rele

Re: What to do when packagers "forget" bodhi updates for branched (f32)?

successful), but no bodhi update was created. In some cases, > > > f32 was "forgotten" entirely. > > > > > > So, assuming the best, those packagers simply forgot that bodhi > > > updates are necessary for branched releases after the beta freeze. > >

Re: What to do when packagers "forget" bodhi updates for branched (f32)?

for rawhide and f31/f30, but > > no bodhi update for fedora 32. > > > > In most cases, the updated package was built on fedora 32 (a koji > > build was successful), but no bodhi update was created. In some cases, > > f32 was "forgotten" entirely. > > &g

Re: What to do when packagers "forget" bodhi updates for branched (f32)?

cases, the updated package was built on fedora 32 (a koji > build was successful), but no bodhi update was created. In some cases, > f32 was "forgotten" entirely. > > So, assuming the best, those packagers simply forgot that bodhi > updates are necessary for branched releases

Re: What to do when packagers "forget" bodhi updates for branched (f32)?

On 16. 03. 20 21:30, Fabio Valentini wrote: 3) python-matplotlib-3.1.3-1.fc31 is going to f31 stable: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-188dd2b161 The update to 3.1.3 has been built for f33 and f31, but not for f32. The 3.1.3 changes aren't even merged from master into the f32 b

What to do when packagers "forget" bodhi updates for branched (f32)?

e was created. In some cases, f32 was "forgotten" entirely. So, assuming the best, those packagers simply forgot that bodhi updates are necessary for branched releases after the beta freeze. What is the best couse of action for such forgotten updates? Some are bugfixes, others are new ver

Re: PSA: please stop manually titling Bodhi updates

On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 10:47:38AM +0100, Fabio Valentini wrote: >On Thu, Nov 28, 2019, 09:53 Joe Orton <[1]jor...@redhat.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 09:33:04AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > > Hey folks! > > > > Since the new Bodhi UI rolled out recently I've

Re: PSA: please stop manually titling Bodhi updates

On Thu, Nov 28, 2019, 09:53 Joe Orton wrote: > On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 09:33:04AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > > Hey folks! > > > > Since the new Bodhi UI rolled out recently I've noticed a big uptick in > > updates where the update creator manually set the update title. > > > > This is a prob

Re: PSA: please stop manually titling Bodhi updates

On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 09:33:04AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > Hey folks! > > Since the new Bodhi UI rolled out recently I've noticed a big uptick in > updates where the update creator manually set the update title. > > This is a problem because in every single case so far, the manually- > cr

PSA: please stop manually titling Bodhi updates

Hey folks! Since the new Bodhi UI rolled out recently I've noticed a big uptick in updates where the update creator manually set the update title. This is a problem because in every single case so far, the manually- created title is worse than an auto-generated title would have been. If you just

Re: when will bodhi (updates) recognize fc31/f31 updates

On Thu, 15 Aug 2019 at 22:33, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > On 8/15/19 7:44 AM, Alexander Bokovoy wrote: > > On to, 15 elo 2019, Kaleb Keithley wrote: > >> On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 10:21 AM Alexander Bokovoy > >> wrote: > >> > >>> On to, 15 elo 2019, Kaleb Keithley wrote: > >>> >I've tried to submit a bu

Re: when will bodhi (updates) recognize fc31/f31 updates

On 8/15/19 7:44 AM, Alexander Bokovoy wrote: > On to, 15 elo 2019, Kaleb Keithley wrote: >> On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 10:21 AM Alexander Bokovoy >> wrote: >> >>> On to, 15 elo 2019, Kaleb Keithley wrote: >>> >I've tried to submit a build on f31 to testing, using both the cli >>> and via >>> >the web

Re: when will bodhi (updates) recognize fc31/f31 updates

On to, 15 elo 2019, Kaleb Keithley wrote: On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 10:21 AM Alexander Bokovoy wrote: On to, 15 elo 2019, Kaleb Keithley wrote: >I've tried to submit a build on f31 to testing, using both the cli and via >the web site, and both are failing > >On the web site I get a popup with: B

Re: when will bodhi (updates) recognize fc31/f31 updates

On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 10:21 AM Alexander Bokovoy wrote: > On to, 15 elo 2019, Kaleb Keithley wrote: > >I've tried to submit a build on f31 to testing, using both the cli and via > >the web site, and both are failing > > > >On the web site I get a popup with: Builds : Cannot find release > assoc

Re: when will bodhi (updates) recognize fc31/f31 updates

On to, 15 elo 2019, Kaleb Keithley wrote: I've tried to submit a build on f31 to testing, using both the cli and via the web site, and both are failing On the web site I get a popup with: Builds : Cannot find release associated with build: nfs-ganesha-2.8.2-5.fc31, tags: ['f31'] fedpkg update g

when will bodhi (updates) recognize fc31/f31 updates

I've tried to submit a build on f31 to testing, using both the cli and via the web site, and both are failing On the web site I get a popup with: Builds : Cannot find release associated with build: nfs-ganesha-2.8.2-5.fc31, tags: ['f31'] fedpkg update gets: Could not execute update: Could not gen

Re: Please sweep bodhi updates to testing in a timely manner

Adam Williamson wrote: > But the key principle here isn't 'fairness', it's 'is the package > broken'. That's the actual thing we're trying to achieve. From that > perspective it doesn't make any sense to start the timer on submission > rather than push. What I want to achieve is predictability for

Re: Please sweep bodhi updates to testing in a timely manner

On Tue, 2019-08-13 at 23:36 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Adam Williamson wrote: > > It's not really about "accountability", it's simply: we can only really > > assume the package is being tested once it makes it to the repo. Yes > > you can pull it out sooner manually or using bodhi CLI, but very f

Re: Please sweep bodhi updates to testing in a timely manner

Adam Williamson wrote: > It's not really about "accountability", it's simply: we can only really > assume the package is being tested once it makes it to the repo. Yes > you can pull it out sooner manually or using bodhi CLI, but very few > people do that. The intent of the rule is "we want people

Re: Please sweep bodhi updates to testing in a timely manner

On Sun, 2019-08-11 at 12:55 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > I'm not sure what else you would like me to do here... > > How about changing the Bodhi rules to allow stable pushes 7 days after > update submission rather than 7 days after the push to testing actually > happens? T

Re: Please sweep bodhi updates to testing in a timely manner

On 8/11/19 3:55 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Kevin Fenzi wrote: >> I'm not sure what else you would like me to do here... > > How about changing the Bodhi rules to allow stable pushes 7 days after > update submission rather than 7 days after the push to testing actually > happens? That would make t

Re: Please sweep bodhi updates to testing in a timely manner

Brian (bex) Exelbierd wrote: > I didn't see your comment until after I opened > https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2207 - would love your feedback on that. https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2207#comment-589009 Kevin Kofler ___ devel mailing list -- devel

Re: Please sweep bodhi updates to testing in a timely manner

Kevin, I didn't see your comment until after I opened https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2207 - would love your feedback on that. regards, bex On Sun, Aug 11, 2019 at 1:01 PM Kevin Kofler wrote: > > Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > I'm not sure what else you would like me to do here... > > How about changing

Re: Please sweep bodhi updates to testing in a timely manner

Kevin Fenzi wrote: > I'm not sure what else you would like me to do here... How about changing the Bodhi rules to allow stable pushes 7 days after update submission rather than 7 days after the push to testing actually happens? That would make things much more predictable for maintainers and no

Re: Please sweep bodhi updates to testing in a timely manner

> But there's not anything actually wrong anymore?\ >I'm not sure what else you would like me to do here...>kevin Yeah it's all good now -- f30 and f29 are all in testing now.   Thanks for checking.Phil___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproje

Re: Please sweep bodhi updates to testing in a timely manner

On 8/10/19 5:34 PM, Philip Kovacs via devel wrote: > UTC 00:00:00 has come and gone and nothing was pushed to testing, yet again. Updates pushes are not instant. You shouldn't expect them all to finish at 00:00:01. They did indeed fire off as expected at 00:00 and finished some hours later, as th

Re: Please sweep bodhi updates to testing in a timely manner

UTC 00:00:00 has come and gone and nothing was pushed to testing, yet again.   My reference to "7 days" was the time I have to wait until I can request stable.That timer cannot start until the packages hit testing. There really should be more than one guy who happens to be at a conferencetaking

Re: Please sweep bodhi updates to testing in a timely manner

On 8/10/19 11:33 AM, Philip Kovacs via devel wrote: > Just look at the updates pending pages.  Here are f30 and f29, resp: > https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/?releases=F30&status=pending > https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/?releases=F29&status=pending Updates are pushed every single d

Re: Please sweep bodhi updates to testing in a timely manner

Just look at the updates pending pages.  Here are f30 and f29, resp: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/?releases=F30&status=pending https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/?releases=F29&status=pending On Saturday, August 10, 2019, 02:29:24 PM EDT, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: On Sa

Re: Please sweep bodhi updates to testing in a timely manner

On Sat, 10 Aug 2019 at 13:22, Philip Kovacs via devel < devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote: > Why does it take days sometimes just to start the 7 day timer? > Can we have some examples to track this down? Because without that.. no idea and no way to fix. > ___

Please sweep bodhi updates to testing in a timely manner

Why does it take days sometimes just to start the 7 day timer? ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/projec

Re: Bodhi updates permanently locked in PENDING

On 12/14/18 2:08 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > On 12/14/18 4:38 AM, Florian Weimer wrote: >> I need to make changes to these updates: >> >> https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-2efb53dc71 >> https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-0e5b278265 >> >> They have been locked in

Re: Bodhi updates permanently locked in PENDING

On 12/14/18 4:38 AM, Florian Weimer wrote: > I need to make changes to these updates: > > https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-2efb53dc71 > https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-0e5b278265 > > They have been locked in the pending state for hours. How can I get >

Bodhi updates permanently locked in PENDING

I need to make changes to these updates: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-2efb53dc71 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-0e5b278265 They have been locked in the pending state for hours. How can I get them unstuck? Thanks, Florian __

Re: Too fast karma on Bodhi updates

Sayan Chowdhury wrote: > I recently packaged and pushed an update for > fedmsg-meta-fedora-infrastructure to bodhi and exactly 40 secs[1] later I > got a +1 to the update. I am sure that testing a package surely takes more > than 40 secs. This makes me really curious that are the packages really >

Re: Requiring package test instructions (was: Re: Too fast karma on Bodhi updates)

On Wed, 2016-07-13 at 10:21 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > On 13/07/16 08:21 +0530, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 03:45:54PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > > > > > > Bodhi works at the source package level, not binary package level. > > That's irrelevant. If a sourc

Re: Requiring package test instructions (was: Re: Too fast karma on Bodhi updates)

On 13/07/16 08:21 +0530, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote: On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 03:45:54PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: Bodhi works at the source package level, not binary package level. That's irrelevant. If a source package only provides a library for other packages to link against then testing

Re: Requiring package test instructions (was: Re: Too fast karma on Bodhi updates)

On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 11:52:45PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > FWIW, as someone who is working on this, I don't think we can > realistically aim to do distribution-level automated testing with per- > package granularity. We actually have all the bits in place to do > something like that if we w

Re: Requiring package test instructions (was: Re: Too fast karma on Bodhi updates)

On Tue, 2016-07-12 at 23:52 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > > Of course, we don't *have* to pick one thing or the other necessarily; > we can certainly provide all the appropriate hooks for packages to do > automated update testing, this is something folks are already looking > at, and there's no

Re: Requiring package test instructions (was: Re: Too fast karma on Bodhi updates)

On Wed, 2016-07-13 at 11:08 +0530, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote: > On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 10:26:20PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > > > > It would not be 'a lot of work', it would be a gigantic, totally > > unsustainable burden. I honestly think you're shooting *way* too high > > here. Even with all

Re: Requiring package test instructions (was: Re: Too fast karma on Bodhi updates)

On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 10:26:20PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > It would not be 'a lot of work', it would be a gigantic, totally > unsustainable burden. I honestly think you're shooting *way* too high > here. Even with all the recent volunteers, we have like a couple dozen I agree it is a massi

  1   2   >