Re: old_testing_critpath notifications

tis 2010-12-07 klockan 19:20 -0500 skrev Doug Ledford: > For non-boot devices, loopback works. You only need the hardware if you > are testing boot time capabilities (which, admittedly, is the far more > important aspect of testing for this package). And if you don't have spare systems with more

Re: old_testing_critpath notifications

On Sat, 2010-12-11 at 00:01 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Software just cannot grasp these things. Or do you volunteer for writing an > NLP processing system for Bodhi, and training all our testers to deal with > its limitations? Why can't we just let a human be the one to decide when to > hit t

Re: old_testing_critpath notifications

Bruno Wolff III wrote: > I am concerned about that. If my karma is going to be treated differently > because I become a proventester, I'd want to know what I am supposed to be > doing differently and not mark something +1 by mistake. I think this > concern goes away in the unicorn filled world wher

Re: old_testing_critpath notifications

On 12/03/2010 04:09 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Adam Williamson wrote: >> We're working on this. It won't always be practical, however; in the >> current case, for example, you need specific hardware to test mdadm. > > Uh, this is md, not dm, you don't need very special HARDWARE (basically only > 2

Re: old_testing_critpath notifications

On Wed, Dec 01, 2010 at 02:02:48PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Wed, 2010-12-01 at 16:54 -0500, Luke Macken wrote: > > > Yep, that happens. There are also people that add +0 comments to > > updates saying "Untested". There is an obvious need for more > > fine-grained karma types. > > I've

Re: old_testing_critpath notifications

On Mon, Dec 06, 2010 at 08:57:42 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > > practically speaking that would change very little, because we're not > blocked on getting moderator approval at present. Thankfully a lot of > people are taking up the moderator duties, so anyone who actually > applies to be a

Re: old_testing_critpath notifications

On Sun, 2010-12-05 at 09:41 -0600, Bruno Wolff III wrote: > On Thu, Dec 02, 2010 at 11:48:13 -0800, > Adam Williamson wrote: > > > > I think it'd probably fit better in the preamble before step 1. Perhaps > > after the paragraph 'As a Contributor, you should...' we add a paragraph > > explainin

Re: old_testing_critpath notifications

On Thu, Dec 02, 2010 at 11:48:13 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > > I think it'd probably fit better in the preamble before step 1. Perhaps > after the paragraph 'As a Contributor, you should...' we add a paragraph > explaining that as a packager you will automatically be given > proventester pr

Re: old_testing_critpath notifications

On Fri, 2010-12-03 at 22:09 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Adam Williamson wrote: > > We're working on this. It won't always be practical, however; in the > > current case, for example, you need specific hardware to test mdadm. > > Uh, this is md, not dm, you don't need very special HARDWARE (basica

Re: old_testing_critpath notifications

Adam Williamson wrote: > We're working on this. It won't always be practical, however; in the > current case, for example, you need specific hardware to test mdadm. Uh, this is md, not dm, you don't need very special HARDWARE (basically only 2 HDDs, which do not even have to be identical, and you

Re: old_testing_critpath notifications

On Thu, 2010-12-02 at 14:22 -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > > * Try and test in a reasonably user-ish environment, not your own highly > > customized one; if this means using a separate user account or a VM, do > > > Note about this second bullet: I'm not sure this is good advice. There's > been

Re: old_testing_critpath notifications

On Thu, Dec 02, 2010 at 01:16:18PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Thu, 2010-12-02 at 12:30 -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 02, 2010 at 11:25:03AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > > > On Thu, 2010-12-02 at 14:10 -0500, Doug Ledford wrote: > > > > That being the case, I test the pack

Re: old_testing_critpath notifications

On Thu, 2010-12-02 at 12:30 -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > On Thu, Dec 02, 2010 at 11:25:03AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > > On Thu, 2010-12-02 at 14:10 -0500, Doug Ledford wrote: > > > That being the case, I test the package fairly rigorously myself. But > > > this process doesn't take that i

Re: old_testing_critpath notifications

On Thu, 2010-12-02 at 15:43 -0500, Clyde E. Kunkel wrote: > >> That being the case, I test the package fairly rigorously myself. But > >> this process doesn't take that into account. I test far more things > >> than you get with a few people just doing smoke tests, but the smoke > >> tests are a

Re: old_testing_critpath notifications

On 12/02/2010 02:25 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Thu, 2010-12-02 at 14:10 -0500, Doug Ledford wrote: > >> My package in question (mdadm) is only used in certain circumstances, >> but if it isn't right, systems fail to boot. I can certainly see why >> something that can render a machine unbootab

Re: old_testing_critpath notifications

On Thu, Dec 02, 2010 at 11:25:03AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Thu, 2010-12-02 at 14:10 -0500, Doug Ledford wrote: > > That being the case, I test the package fairly rigorously myself. But > > this process doesn't take that into account. I test far more things > > than you get with a few p

Re: old_testing_critpath notifications

On Wed, 2010-12-01 at 17:32 -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > We don't have an automated process for showing people the rest of the wiki > pages with packager information either. If we added the information to this > page: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process > > after step #9,

Re: old_testing_critpath notifications

On Thu, 2010-12-02 at 14:10 -0500, Doug Ledford wrote: > My package in question (mdadm) is only used in certain circumstances, > but if it isn't right, systems fail to boot. I can certainly see why > something that can render a machine unbootable should be critpath. > However, because only a few

Re: old_testing_critpath notifications

On 12/01/2010 05:17 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Wed, 2010-12-01 at 16:55 -0500, Doug Ledford wrote: > >> The comparison is 100% fair because it points out the fundamental >> problem with the current policy: if you don't have a paid staff of >> testers to make sure testing is done in a timely f

Re: old_testing_critpath notifications

On Thu, 2010-12-02 at 19:19 +0100, Till Maas wrote: > A big difference is that the testing process is very fuzzy and there is > not much tooling that helps people to test unknown software. E.g. if I > want to review a package, there are several checklists I could use and > there are guidelines tha

Re: old_testing_critpath notifications

On Wed, Dec 01, 2010 at 02:17:32PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Wed, 2010-12-01 at 16:55 -0500, Doug Ledford wrote: > > > The comparison is 100% fair because it points out the fundamental > > problem with the current policy: if you don't have a paid staff of > > testers to make sure testing

Re: old_testing_critpath notifications

On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 6:31 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Thu, 2010-12-02 at 18:20 +0100, François Cami wrote: >> On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 6:03 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: >> > On Thu, 2010-12-02 at 13:20 +0100, François Cami wrote: >> > >> >> Of course, we could look at things differently: for a

Re: old_testing_critpath notifications

On Thu, 2010-12-02 at 18:20 +0100, François Cami wrote: > On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 6:03 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > > On Thu, 2010-12-02 at 13:20 +0100, François Cami wrote: > > > >> Of course, we could look at things differently: for a package to be > >> marked critpath, it should have users or be

Re: old_testing_critpath notifications

On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 6:03 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Thu, 2010-12-02 at 13:20 +0100, François Cami wrote: > >> Of course, we could look at things differently: for a package to be >> marked critpath, it should have users or be a dependency of some other >> package with users. > > This is pre

Re: old_testing_critpath notifications

On Thu, 2010-12-02 at 13:20 +0100, François Cami wrote: > Of course, we could look at things differently: for a package to be > marked critpath, it should have users or be a dependency of some other > package with users. This is pretty inevitably implicit in the current definition of critpath - p

Re: old_testing_critpath notifications

On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 1:32 AM, Matt McCutchen wrote: > On Wed, 2010-12-01 at 14:17 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: >> >> When software is packaged it's reasonable to expect that someone, >> somewhere, uses it; if they don't, it probably shouldn't be packaged. We >> need to find those people and eng

Re: old_testing_critpath notifications

On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 10:34 PM, Luke Macken wrote: > On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 01:36:18PM +, Petr Pisar wrote: >> On 2010-11-29, Peter Robinson wrote: >> > On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 9:56 AM, Petr Pisar wrote: >> > >> > Proven testers do get copies of these emails (dozens of them) and its >> > a

Re: old_testing_critpath notifications

On 2010-12-01, Luke Macken wrote: > On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 01:36:18PM +, Petr Pisar wrote: >> On 2010-11-29, Peter Robinson wrote: >> > On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 9:56 AM, Petr Pisar wrote: >> > >> > Proven testers do get copies of these emails (dozens of them) and its >> > also summarised in

Re: old_testing_critpath notifications

On Wed, Dec 01, 2010 at 03:59:02PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Wed, 2010-12-01 at 15:53 -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > > > > I don't really see any reason why *everyone* who's a packager shouldn't > > > also have signed up to be a proven tester by now. I'd like to ask if > > > anyone has a

Re: old_testing_critpath notifications

On Wed, 2010-12-01 at 14:17 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > [...] I think we need to be > careful of the mindset that says 'we can't enforce any standards in > Fedora because it's a volunteer project so we must just accept what > people are willing to give us'. > > Even though packaging in Fedora

Re: old_testing_critpath notifications

On Wed, 2010-12-01 at 15:53 -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > > I don't really see any reason why *everyone* who's a packager shouldn't > > also have signed up to be a proven tester by now. I'd like to ask if > > anyone has a perception that it's a hard process to get involved in, or > > if they got

Re: old_testing_critpath notifications

On Wed, Dec 01, 2010 at 02:17:32PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > > The concept of having a policy requiring updates to be tested before > they're issued is really no different. I think one point where we've > fallen over is that it wasn't sufficiently well discussed / communicated > in advance t

Re: old_testing_critpath notifications

On Wed, 2010-12-01 at 16:15 -0700, Nathanael D. Noblet wrote: > > fedora-easy-karma makes it very, very easy. Have you tried it? You just > > run it, at a console, and it detects all the packages you have installed > > from updates-testing, gives you the description of each, and asks you to > > pr

Re: old_testing_critpath notifications

On 12/01/2010 04:06 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Wed, 2010-12-01 at 15:53 -0700, Nathanael D. Noblet wrote: >> On 12/01/2010 03:17 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: >>> I don't really see any reason why *everyone* who's a packager shouldn't >>> also have signed up to be a proven tester by now. I'd like

Re: old_testing_critpath notifications

On Wed, 2010-12-01 at 15:53 -0700, Nathanael D. Noblet wrote: > On 12/01/2010 03:17 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > > I don't really see any reason why *everyone* who's a packager shouldn't > > also have signed up to be a proven tester by now. I'd like to ask if > > anyone has a perception that it's a

Re: old_testing_critpath notifications

On 12/01/2010 03:17 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > I don't really see any reason why *everyone* who's a packager shouldn't > also have signed up to be a proven tester by now. I'd like to ask if > anyone has a perception that it's a hard process to get involved in, or > if they got the impression that

Re: old_testing_critpath notifications

On Wed, 2010-12-01 at 16:55 -0500, Doug Ledford wrote: > The comparison is 100% fair because it points out the fundamental > problem with the current policy: if you don't have a paid staff of > testers to make sure testing is done in a timely fashion, then you have > absolutely no business gating

Re: old_testing_critpath notifications

On Wed, 2010-12-01 at 16:54 -0500, Luke Macken wrote: > Yep, that happens. There are also people that add +0 comments to > updates saying "Untested". There is an obvious need for more > fine-grained karma types. I've sent out notes to the test list to ask people not to do either of those things

Re: old_testing_critpath notifications

On 12/01/2010 04:35 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Wed, 2010-12-01 at 16:22 -0500, Doug Ledford wrote: > >> If the ticket can be allowed to languish that long, then I don't feel in >> the least bit guilty that I didn't drop my other Red Hat >> responsibilities on the floor when the ticket was fin

Re: old_testing_critpath notifications

On Wed, Dec 01, 2010 at 04:49:07PM -0500, Doug Ledford wrote: > On 12/01/2010 04:40 PM, Luke Macken wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 01, 2010 at 10:41:20AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > >> On Wed, 2010-12-01 at 13:23 -0500, Doug Ledford wrote: > >> > >>> That being said, F14 went out with a broken mdadm *p

Re: old_testing_critpath notifications

On 12/01/2010 04:40 PM, Luke Macken wrote: > On Wed, Dec 01, 2010 at 10:41:20AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: >> On Wed, 2010-12-01 at 13:23 -0500, Doug Ledford wrote: >> >>> That being said, F14 went out with a broken mdadm *purely* because of >>> this policy. >> >>> Evidently my update was approv

Re: old_testing_critpath notifications

On Wed, Dec 01, 2010 at 10:41:20AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Wed, 2010-12-01 at 13:23 -0500, Doug Ledford wrote: > > > That being said, F14 went out with a broken mdadm *purely* because of > > this policy. > > > Evidently my update was approved somewhere along the way, but because of > >

Re: old_testing_critpath notifications

On Wed, 2010-12-01 at 16:22 -0500, Doug Ledford wrote: > If the ticket can be allowed to languish that long, then I don't feel in > the least bit guilty that I didn't drop my other Red Hat > responsibilities on the floor when the ticket was finally approved. By > the time it was approved, I had a

Re: old_testing_critpath notifications

On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 01:36:18PM +, Petr Pisar wrote: > On 2010-11-29, Peter Robinson wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 9:56 AM, Petr Pisar wrote: > > > > Proven testers do get copies of these emails (dozens of them) and its > > also summarised in the updates-testing report for all to see.

Re: old_testing_critpath notifications

On 12/01/2010 01:41 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Wed, 2010-12-01 at 13:23 -0500, Doug Ledford wrote: > >> That being said, F14 went out with a broken mdadm *purely* because of >> this policy. > >> Evidently my update was approved somewhere along the way, but because of >> the volume of bodhi s

Re: old_testing_critpath notifications

On Wed, 2010-12-01 at 21:12 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Adam Williamson wrote: > > You can get an exception to the policy with majority approval from FESCo. > > That "exception process" is a joke! It takes too long to get approval from 2 > people, one in a medium-sized group and the other in a v

Re: old_testing_critpath notifications

Adam Williamson wrote: > You can get an exception to the policy with majority approval from FESCo. That "exception process" is a joke! It takes too long to get approval from 2 people, one in a medium-sized group and the other in a very large group, and so the process is that you need to get 5 vo

Re: old_testing_critpath notifications

On Wed, 2010-12-01 at 13:23 -0500, Doug Ledford wrote: > So, for anyone that cares, I will posit a maxim that you can't create a > policy that creates an unbreakable roadblock without also creating > either A) a job who's responsibility it is to clear said roadblocks in a > reasonable period of ti

Re: old_testing_critpath notifications

On Wed, 2010-12-01 at 13:23 -0500, Doug Ledford wrote: > That being said, F14 went out with a broken mdadm *purely* because of > this policy. > Evidently my update was approved somewhere along the way, but because of > the volume of bodhi spam I get, I missed it. ...so what you're saying is that

Re: old_testing_critpath notifications

On 11/30/2010 05:50 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > > > On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 3:20 AM, Kevin Kofler > wrote: > > Rahul Sundaram wrote: > > I am sorry but "somebody does not did his job"? It is not the > "job" of > > anyone to test packages for you.

Re: old_testing_critpath notifications

Rahul Sundaram wrote: > You believe that it is fine to test for Fedora 14 and push for Fedora 13 > without testing for that release explicitly. Or the opposite, for that matter. Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/list

Re: old_testing_critpath notifications

On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 3:20 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Rahul Sundaram wrote: > > I am sorry but "somebody does not did his job"? It is not the "job" of > > anyone to test packages for you. They are merely helping out and we > > will get more help if we express gratitude instead of a sense of > >

Re: old_testing_critpath notifications

On Mon, 2010-11-29 at 14:34 +, Petr Pisar wrote: > On 2010-11-29, Peter Robinson wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 1:36 PM, Petr Pisar wrote: > >> On 2010-11-29, Peter Robinson wrote: > >>> On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 9:56 AM, Petr Pisar wrote: > >>> > > have no problems with it and I maintai

Re: old_testing_critpath notifications

On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 16:11:37 + (UTC), Petr wrote: > On 2010-11-29, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > > On 11/29/2010 08:04 PM, Petr Pisar wrote: > >> I do not get the idea why I should filter some irrelevant mails if > >> better is to not sent them. Especially if I cannot solve the subject of > >> the m

Re: old_testing_critpath notifications

On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 09:33:46AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Mon, 2010-11-29 at 14:34 +, Petr Pisar wrote: > > > I do not get the idea why I should filter some irrelevant mails if > > better is to not sent them. Especially if I cannot solve the subject of > > the mail. Yeah, the subje

Re: old_testing_critpath notifications

Rahul Sundaram wrote: > I am sorry but "somebody does not did his job"? It is not the "job" of > anyone to test packages for you. They are merely helping out and we > will get more help if we express gratitude instead of a sense of > entitlement. But this is exactly why the current policy which

Re: old_testing_critpath notifications

On Mon, 2010-11-29 at 14:34 +, Petr Pisar wrote: > I do not get the idea why I should filter some irrelevant mails if > better is to not sent them. Especially if I cannot solve the subject of > the mail. Yeah, the subject is somobody does not did his job. I cannot > imagine the knowledge would

Re: old_testing_critpath notifications

On 2010-11-29, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > On 11/29/2010 08:04 PM, Petr Pisar wrote: >> I do not get the idea why I should filter some irrelevant mails if >> better is to not sent them. Especially if I cannot solve the subject of >> the mail. Yeah, the subject is somobody does not did his job. I canno

Re: old_testing_critpath notifications

On 11/29/2010 08:04 PM, Petr Pisar wrote: > I do not get the idea why I should filter some irrelevant mails if > better is to not sent them. Especially if I cannot solve the subject of > the mail. Yeah, the subject is somobody does not did his job. I cannot > imagine the knowledge would help me in

Re: old_testing_critpath notifications

On 2010-11-29, Peter Robinson wrote: > On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 1:36 PM, Petr Pisar wrote: >> On 2010-11-29, Peter Robinson wrote: >>> On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 9:56 AM, Petr Pisar wrote: >>> >>> Proven testers do get copies of these emails (dozens of them) and its >>> also summarised in the updat

Re: old_testing_critpath notifications

On 11/29/2010 02:46 PM, Peter Robinson wrote: > On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 1:36 PM, Petr Pisar wrote: >> On 2010-11-29, Peter Robinson wrote: >>> On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 9:56 AM, Petr Pisar wrote: >>> >>> Proven testers do get copies of these emails (dozens of them) and its >>> also summarised in t

Re: old_testing_critpath notifications

On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 1:36 PM, Petr Pisar wrote: > On 2010-11-29, Peter Robinson wrote: >> On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 9:56 AM, Petr Pisar wrote: >> >> Proven testers do get copies of these emails (dozens of them) and its >> also summarised in the updates-testing report for all to see. >> > Oh, I

Re: old_testing_critpath notifications

On 2010-11-29, Peter Robinson wrote: > On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 9:56 AM, Petr Pisar wrote: > > Proven testers do get copies of these emails (dozens of them) and its > also summarised in the updates-testing report for all to see. > Oh, I thought described as `For testers of Fedora development rele

Re: old_testing_critpath notifications

On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 9:56 AM, Petr Pisar wrote: > Hello, > > Few days ago I started to get very usefull notifications that my > critical package, mingetty-1.08-6.fc13, `has been in 'testing' status > for over 2 weeks, and has yet to be approved.' > > I doubt such mails help me as the package ma

old_testing_critpath notifications

Hello, Few days ago I started to get very usefull notifications that my critical package, mingetty-1.08-6.fc13, `has been in 'testing' status for over 2 weeks, and has yet to be approved.' I doubt such mails help me as the package maintainer, because according current Updates policy