On Mon, 2015-11-09 at 17:11 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Mon, 2015-11-09 at 13:56 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > Kamil Paral wrote:
> > > So we could ignore freeze just for packages not being on any install
> > > medium. But then I'm not sure how much that is helpful and it might be
> > > dif
On Mon, 2015-11-09 at 13:56 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Kamil Paral wrote:
> > So we could ignore freeze just for packages not being on any install
> > medium. But then I'm not sure how much that is helpful and it might be
> > difficult to implement this in Bodhi.
>
> In the old manual process, I
Kamil Paral wrote:
> So we could ignore freeze just for packages not being on any install
> medium. But then I'm not sure how much that is helpful and it might be
> difficult to implement this in Bodhi.
In the old manual process, I just had to ask rel-eng and they'd blanket-OK
freeze overrides fo
> Very frequently in such cases the entire test matrix is not completely
> retested. A lot of prior tests a carried over because they're known
> (or strongly suspected) of not having been touched in any way by the
> fix of one or two blocker bugs.
>
> If hundreds of packages get unfrozen and sync'
On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 3:30 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Nov 2015 09:23:49 +0100
> Petr Spacek wrote:
>
>> On 3.11.2015 01:56, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> > And with my proposed change to the release
>> > policy (slip = unfreeze, sync all updates, refreeze), you could
>> > also use the time to g
Hi,
I think the better approach is to allow more updates, as Kevin suggested,
usually they fix more than they break.
I also think shorter freezes with unfreeze on slip are better than the
current approach of accumulated updates on release day.
>From my point of view, the best approach is rolling r
On Wed, 2015-11-04 at 20:03 -0600, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-11-05 at 02:16 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> > > 1) More time to catch regressions
> >
> > In theory. In practice, it mostly means more wasted time until a
> > regression
> > is FIXED, i.e., it
On Thu, 2015-11-05 at 02:16 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> > 1) More time to catch regressions
>
> In theory. In practice, it mostly means more wasted time until a
> regression
> is FIXED, i.e., it is entirely counterproductive. Many regressions
> are only
> noticed once
Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> 1) More time to catch regressions
In theory. In practice, it mostly means more wasted time until a regression
is FIXED, i.e., it is entirely counterproductive. Many regressions are only
noticed once the update goes stable, because that's when most users start
trying i
On Tue, 3 Nov 2015 09:23:49 +0100
Petr Spacek wrote:
> On 3.11.2015 01:56, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > And with my proposed change to the release
> > policy (slip = unfreeze, sync all updates, refreeze), you could
> > also use the time to get fixes/improvements in that would have
> > otherwise misse
On Tue, 2015-11-03 at 02:13 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> > Yeah, that's the clear disadvantage. The service pack approach
> > sidesteps that problem: everything still goes out, just not so
> > soon, so
> > everything spends plenty of time in testing. All the bugs still ge
On Tue, 2015-11-03 at 02:28 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> (And to those people who want to do "service packs": please focus
> your
> "service pack" testing on the respins instead, and don't break the
> existing
> update system that works fine.)
Yeah, there's really no reason service packs would h
On 3.11.2015 02:13, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Michael Catanzaro wrote:
>> Yeah, that's the clear disadvantage. The service pack approach
>> sidesteps that problem: everything still goes out, just not so soon, so
>> everything spends plenty of time in testing. All the bugs still get
>> fixed, just not a
On 3.11.2015 01:56, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> And with my proposed change to the release
> policy (slip = unfreeze, sync all updates, refreeze), you could also use the
> time to get fixes/improvements in that would have otherwise missed the
> release.
+1, this seems like a very reasonable proposal
On Mon, 2015-11-02 at 20:27 -0500, Eric Griffith wrote:
> Hey all, hate to be a downer but we might have a bug in the installer
>
> Just installed F23 Workstation via RC10. Encryption with btrfs across
> two
> drives. Intel graphics (Lenovo t450s if anyone has access to one).
> Installed the syste
I think official respins are a good idea, indeed. But:
Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> So, in order to do what you are wanting we need (at least) 3 things:
>
> 1) releng has to make every daily compose a full compose of all
> deliverables. We have actually been working toward this, and perhaps
[snip]
> 2) Q
Hey all, hate to be a downer but we might have a bug in the installer
Just installed F23 Workstation via RC10. Encryption with btrfs across two
drives. Intel graphics (Lenovo t450s if anyone has access to one).
Installed the system, rebooted into system. I get met with a black screen
and the text
Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> Yeah, that's the clear disadvantage. The service pack approach
> sidesteps that problem: everything still goes out, just not so soon, so
> everything spends plenty of time in testing. All the bugs still get
> fixed, just not as fast.
And that's "better" HOW?
> (This als
Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> My recommendation is the opposite of what Kevin would say, though. I'd
> like to see a third party responsible for giving final approval on all
> updates, charged with reducing the size of the updates pipe dramatically.
> Maintainers should not have final say on updates e
2015-11-02 21:36 GMT-03:00 Kevin Fenzi :
> On Mon, 2 Nov 2015 21:33:45 -0300
> Adrian Soliard wrote:
>
>> 've a question:
>>
>> Installing F23 RC10 is the same that wait to the final release? I'm
>> planning to install it now, tomorrow I will not have time to download
>> and install it.
>
> yes, r
On Mon, 2 Nov 2015 21:33:45 -0300
Adrian Soliard wrote:
> 've a question:
>
> Installing F23 RC10 is the same that wait to the final release? I'm
> planning to install it now, tomorrow I will not have time to download
> and install it.
yes, rc10 was the exact release candidate that is the final
've a question:
Installing F23 RC10 is the same that wait to the final release? I'm
planning to install it now, tomorrow I will not have time to download
and install it.
2015-11-02 19:57 GMT-03:00 Adam Williamson :
> On Mon, 2015-11-02 at 10:52 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>>
>> > Perhaps full relea
On Mon, 2015-11-02 at 10:52 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>
> > Perhaps full release validation could occur on composes every two
> > weeks for branched releases? Or is that still too demanding?
>
> No idea. I don't want to speak for the QA folks.
So to put it simply and broadly: there's a trade-o
On Mon, 2 Nov 2015 12:45:36 -0500
Neal Gompa wrote:
...snip...
> I'm hopeful we can get to this with Rawhide prior to the branching
> point, but can our infrastructure handle it? I'm somewhat ignorant
> of the capabilities of the Fedora infrastructure...
Yes, as I noted we are working on it.
On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 12:33 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Nov 2015 01:28:07 +
> Sérgio Basto wrote:
>
> > On Dom, 2015-11-01 at 17:53 +, Peter Robinson wrote:
> > > On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 5:06 PM, Sérgio Basto
> > > wrote:
> > > > On Sex, 2015-10-30 at 17:47 +0100, Jan Kurik wrot
On Mon, 02 Nov 2015 01:28:07 +
Sérgio Basto wrote:
> On Dom, 2015-11-01 at 17:53 +, Peter Robinson wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 5:06 PM, Sérgio Basto
> > wrote:
> > > On Sex, 2015-10-30 at 17:47 +0100, Jan Kurik wrote:
> > >> At the third round of Fedora 23 Final Go/No-Go Meetin
On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 9:07 AM, Jonathan Underwood <
jonathan.underw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think it is to some extent a question of what we are QA'ing for. As
> I see it (and I may be in the minority), the QA process is a process
> put in place to ensure the *install and live media* function
>
On 1 November 2015 at 22:14, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
[snip]
> On Sun, 2015-11-01 at 20:03 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> IMHO, we should have at most 1 week of strict freeze. If we decide
>> that we
>> have to slip anyway, then we should pull in ALL updates pending
>> stable and
>> restart the rel
As I found this discussion interesting and I believe FESCo is the right
authority to help with this, I have opened a ticket
https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1495 for the FESCo meeting on
Wednesday, to discuss it.
Regards,
Jan
On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 10:10 AM, Reindl Harald
wrote:
>
>
>
Am 02.11.2015 um 02:28 schrieb Sérgio Basto:
On Dom, 2015-11-01 at 17:53 +, Peter Robinson wrote:
On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 5:06 PM, Sérgio Basto wrote:
On Sex, 2015-10-30 at 17:47 +0100, Jan Kurik wrote:
At the third round of Fedora 23 Final Go/No-Go Meeting, that just
ends, has been Fedo
On 11/01/2015 09:06 AM, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> Today we got 531 updates for F23 , IMO, you should include it on Fedora
> 23 Final before GA , doesn't make sense (to me) after download an ISO
> have 1/2 Giga of updates, but this happens since RedHad 9 at least .
> IMO, testing team should respin ISO
On Dom, 2015-11-01 at 17:53 +, Peter Robinson wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 5:06 PM, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> > On Sex, 2015-10-30 at 17:47 +0100, Jan Kurik wrote:
> >> At the third round of Fedora 23 Final Go/No-Go Meeting, that just
> >> ends, has been Fedora 23 Final-RC10 declared as GOLD.
>
Am 02.11.2015 um 00:36 schrieb Michael Catanzaro:
*who* if not the package maintainer which hopefully uses his own
packages should have the final say? some group of people not
understanding the issues really?
The counterargument is that we keep seeing major version updates that
violate our ex
To be clear, my email proposed two orthogonal solutions -- service
packs, and an oversight body to approve updates -- and here Reindl is
objecting to the later. We could do one or the other, or both, or
neither.
On Sun, 2015-11-01 at 23:31 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
> refrain from updates may kee
Am 01.11.2015 um 23:20 schrieb Michael Catanzaro:
On Sun, 2015-11-01 at 17:53 +, Peter Robinson wrote:
The problem is we have to freeze sometime to ensure stability in the
installer platform, the live and other images which are static. If
not
it's too much of a moving target to try and QA
On Sun, 2015-11-01 at 17:53 +, Peter Robinson wrote:
> The problem is we have to freeze sometime to ensure stability in the
> installer platform, the live and other images which are static. If
> not
> it's too much of a moving target to try and QA and ensure everything
> works as expected. To f
On Sun, 2015-11-01 at 20:03 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Peter Robinson wrote:
> > The problem is we have to freeze sometime to ensure stability in
> > the
> > installer platform, the live and other images which are static. If
> > not
> > it's too much of a moving target to try and QA and ensure
>
Peter Robinson wrote:
> The problem is we have to freeze sometime to ensure stability in the
> installer platform, the live and other images which are static. If not
> it's too much of a moving target to try and QA and ensure everything
> works as expected. To freeze is a fairly standard procedure
On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 5:06 PM, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> On Sex, 2015-10-30 at 17:47 +0100, Jan Kurik wrote:
>> At the third round of Fedora 23 Final Go/No-Go Meeting, that just
>> ends, has been Fedora 23 Final-RC10 declared as GOLD.
>> GA of this release is planed on Tuesday 2015-Nov-03.
>>
> Today
On 01/11/15 12:06 PM, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> On Sex, 2015-10-30 at 17:47 +0100, Jan Kurik wrote:
>> At the third round of Fedora 23 Final Go/No-Go Meeting, that just
>> ends, has been Fedora 23 Final-RC10 declared as GOLD.
>> GA of this release is planed on Tuesday 2015-Nov-03.
>>
> Today we got 531
On Sex, 2015-10-30 at 17:47 +0100, Jan Kurik wrote:
> At the third round of Fedora 23 Final Go/No-Go Meeting, that just
> ends, has been Fedora 23 Final-RC10 declared as GOLD.
> GA of this release is planed on Tuesday 2015-Nov-03.
>
Today we got 531 updates for F23 , IMO, you should include it on
At the third round of Fedora 23 Final Go/No-Go Meeting, that just ends, has
been Fedora 23 Final-RC10 declared as GOLD.
GA of this release is planed on Tuesday 2015-Nov-03.
Meeting details can be seen here:
Minutes:
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-2/2015-10-30/f23-final-go_no_go-me
42 matches
Mail list logo
