On Tue, 2011-09-13 at 13:22 +0200, Nils Philippsen wrote:
> > That's only a default, though; you can lower it to 1 when you submit the
> > update. Also, once a critpath update hits the required threshold - +1
> > from a proventester, +1 from anyone else (PT or no) - you can manually
> > push it to
On 09/13/2011 01:22 PM, Nils Philippsen wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-09-12 at 15:22 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
>> On Mon, 2011-09-12 at 17:56 +0200, Nils Philippsen wrote:
>>
If there is
not enough karma for his package to bring it into the stable, then there
is probably time to ask so
On Mon, 2011-09-12 at 15:22 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-09-12 at 17:56 +0200, Nils Philippsen wrote:
>
> > > If there is
> > > not enough karma for his package to bring it into the stable, then there
> > > is probably time to ask somebody (probably on fedora-devel), to test
> >
On Mon, 2011-09-12 at 17:56 +0200, Nils Philippsen wrote:
> > If there is
> > not enough karma for his package to bring it into the stable, then there
> > is probably time to ask somebody (probably on fedora-devel), to test
> > this package.
>
> We have a default of +3 karma for automatic push
On Fri, 2011-09-09 at 12:22 +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> Sorry, you are mixing two things:
>
> 1) One is testing environment and it can be probably well defined,
> clean, etc.
And thus incomparable to real-life environments. Mind, I'm not arguing
against some testing (e.g. automated regression te
On Fri, 2011-09-09 at 07:06 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 4:13 AM, Nils Philippsen wrote:
> > On Thu, 2011-09-08 at 13:16 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
> >> I don't think a maintainer can realistically replace wide-spread user
> >> based testing in a variety of environments.
> >
> >
On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 4:13 AM, Nils Philippsen wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-09-08 at 13:16 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
>> I don't think a maintainer can realistically replace wide-spread user
>> based testing in a variety of environments.
>
> I didn't argue that this would be the case, but rather that pers
Sorry, you are mixing two things:
1) One is testing environment and it can be probably well defined,
clean, etc.
2) The other thing is maintainer mindset. You can try to convince
yourself to take a different look but I doubt it will work. It reminds
me like if you do patch review of your patch
On Thu, 2011-09-08 at 13:16 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
> I don't think a maintainer can realistically replace wide-spread user
> based testing in a variety of environments.
I didn't argue that this would be the case, but rather that persons who
are developers/package maintainers can also wear a test
On Thu, 2011-09-08 at 22:21 +0200, Till Maas wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 03:33:33PM -0400, David Malcolm wrote:
>
> > package for a while. If I'm happy with my subsequent testing, then I'll
> > +1 my own update, on the grounds that I've been viewing the change from
> > a testing perspective,
On Thu, 2011-09-08 at 22:18 +0200, Till Maas wrote:
> It is easy to go in circles if everyone is using "+1" with a different
> meaning. If you read carefully what I quoted you will notice that I
> quoted a proposal to allow +1 comments only from submitters for non
> critpath updates. If we use you
On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 03:33:33PM -0400, David Malcolm wrote:
> package for a while. If I'm happy with my subsequent testing, then I'll
> +1 my own update, on the grounds that I've been viewing the change from
> a testing perspective, rather than just from a development perspective.
> If not, I'
On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 12:34:25PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-09-08 at 20:59 +0200, Till Maas wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 06:42:56PM +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> >
> > > As in components flagged as base/core/critical might restrict the
> > > maintainer from +1
On Thu, 2011-09-08 at 20:59 +0200, Till Maas wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 06:42:56PM +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
>
> > As in components flagged as base/core/critical might restrict the
> > maintainer from +1 his own component and require more stricter QA
> > oversight while compone
On Wed, 2011-09-07 at 18:38 +0100, Richard Hughes wrote:
> On 7 September 2011 01:02, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > Is this a Bodhi bug? Or does FESCo expect voluntary compliance /
> > case-by-case enforcement of this policy?
>
> I'm guilty of this too; when I file an update that's not getting
> eno
On Thu, 2011-09-08 at 18:42 +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> How about tying the requirement to criteria the component belongs to?
>
> As in components flagged as base/core/critical might restrict the
> maintainer from +1 his own component and require more stricter QA
> oversight while c
On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 06:42:56PM +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> As in components flagged as base/core/critical might restrict the
> maintainer from +1 his own component and require more stricter QA
> oversight while components that are not flag as base/core/critical might
> not?
If
On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 08:30:24PM +0200, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
> Might be worth adding a flash() to inform why the karma wasn't added.
Done:
https://fedorahosted.org/bodhi/attachment/ticket/277/0001-model.py-Change-karma-from-Submitter-to-0.2.patch
Kind regards
Till
pgpHXAZilkoL0.pgp
Desc
On 09/08/2011 06:27 PM, Till Maas wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 01:16:50PM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
>> I don't think a maintainer can realistically replace wide-spread user
>> based testing in a variety of environments. In light of that, we can
>> either accept a maintainer +1 as "I tested this
On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 01:16:50PM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
> I don't think a maintainer can realistically replace wide-spread user
> based testing in a variety of environments. In light of that, we can
> either accept a maintainer +1 as "I tested this as I would use it and
> it worked" (which sho
On Thu, 2011-09-08 at 20:16 +0200, Till Maas wrote:
>
> > It's not being enforced in bodhi, but it should be:
> >
> > https://fedorahosted.org/bodhi/ticket/277
>
> It is somehow sad that nobody took the time to write a two line patch
> to
> fix this 3 year old bug report:
>
> https://fedorahos
On Tue, Sep 06, 2011 at 08:46:50PM -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> It's not being enforced in bodhi, but it should be:
>
> https://fedorahosted.org/bodhi/ticket/277
It is somehow sad that nobody took the time to write a two line patch to
fix this 3 year old bug report:
https://fedorahosted.org/bod
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 11:54 AM, Nils Philippsen wrote:
> I think we should define what a "vanilla environment" is then. One could
> argue that either of the following could be described as "vanilla":
One thing I done in lieu of a full VM is to test CLI programs under
mock. Of course this is a mi
On Thu, 2011-09-08 at 13:16 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
> > - A system in good condition (packages verify well, no dupes) that's
> > used normally, i.e. what you would see being used by normal persons
> > without any fancy hacks in configuration, or worse, non-config files
> > owned by packages. Pro:
On Thu, 2011-09-08 at 16:43 +0200, Johannes Lips wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I think a major problem of the current update policy is, that regular
> users don't see if there are new package updates in updates-testing,
> unless they enable it and I doubt many regular users do this.
>
> So we might think ab
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 12:54 PM, Nils Philippsen wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-09-07 at 18:02 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
>> On Wed, 2011-09-07 at 18:47 -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>> > * As a maintainer it's easy to have a env that gets out of sync with
>> > what a QA or end user would use. Ie, you mak
On Wed, 2011-09-07 at 18:02 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-09-07 at 18:47 -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > * As a maintainer it's easy to have a env that gets out of sync with
> > what a QA or end user would use. Ie, you make 20 iterations of a
> > package to test something, tweak co
On Sep 7, 2011, at 7:13 PM, Andre Robatino wrote:
>
> My opinion is that packagers should be allowed to
> +1 their own packages after a certain delay (1 week, maybe?) if it hasn't
> gotten
> sufficient karma from others by then, and they do actual testing in a
> non-custom
> environment (for exa
On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 07:17:35AM -0700, Christopher Aillon wrote:
> On 09/07/2011 05:47 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>
> > As someone on the other side of this (although not strongly, I could
> > be convinced), I don't think thats my concern at all...
> >
> > * As a maintainer you should only be pushi
Another wrinkle I'm not sure has been discussed (in this thread anyway)...
What if a new package is built in response to a bug report? If you add
the BZ number when you do your updates then of course anyone following
the bug gets cc'd and can try the testing package. It can often be
difficult gett
Hi,
I think a major problem of the current update policy is, that regular
users don't see if there are new package updates in updates-testing,
unless they enable it and I doubt many regular users do this.
So we might think about spreading the word, when a new update of a
software package is av
On 09/07/2011 05:47 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> As someone on the other side of this (although not strongly, I could
> be convinced), I don't think thats my concern at all...
>
> * As a maintainer you should only be pushing an update you feel
>works/fixes something anyhow. Shouldn't that be an im
On 8 September 2011 03:13, Andre Robatino wrote:
> If a packager repeatedly submits +1 for updates which turn out later couldn't
> possibly have worked in actual testing, then their karma privileges could be
> revoked.
Makes sense to me.
Richard.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.
Kevin Fenzi scrye.com> writes:
> * As a maintainer you should only be pushing an update you feel
> works/fixes something anyhow. Shouldn't that be an implied +1 always
> from the maintainer?
Well, there's actual testing, vs. being convinced based on the apparent
simplicity of a patch that it
On Wed, 2011-09-07 at 18:47 -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Sep 2011 12:15:56 -0700
> Adam Williamson wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 2011-09-07 at 18:38 +0100, Richard Hughes wrote:
> > > On 7 September 2011 01:02, Adam Williamson
> > > wrote:
> > > > Is this a Bodhi bug? Or does FESCo expect volun
On Wed, 07 Sep 2011 12:15:56 -0700
Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-09-07 at 18:38 +0100, Richard Hughes wrote:
> > On 7 September 2011 01:02, Adam Williamson
> > wrote:
> > > Is this a Bodhi bug? Or does FESCo expect voluntary compliance /
> > > case-by-case enforcement of this policy?
> >
On Wed, Sep 07, 2011 at 07:20:19PM +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Sep 2011 11:00:57 +1000, PH (Peter) wrote:
>
> > sometimes a +1 after weeks in testing is the only or at least easy way to
> > nudge a package into stable.
> >
> > e.g: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libXi-1.4.
On Wed, 2011-09-07 at 18:38 +0100, Richard Hughes wrote:
> On 7 September 2011 01:02, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > Is this a Bodhi bug? Or does FESCo expect voluntary compliance /
> > case-by-case enforcement of this policy?
>
> I'm guilty of this too; when I file an update that's not getting
> eno
On 7 September 2011 01:02, Adam Williamson wrote:
> Is this a Bodhi bug? Or does FESCo expect voluntary compliance /
> case-by-case enforcement of this policy?
I'm guilty of this too; when I file an update that's not getting
enough karma (after a few weeks) then I give it a spin in a *fresh* VM
a
On Wed, 7 Sep 2011 11:00:57 +1000, PH (Peter) wrote:
> sometimes a +1 after weeks in testing is the only or at least easy way to
> nudge a package into stable.
>
> e.g: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libXi-1.4.3-2.fc15
> even with my +1 still not there, and this isn't the only package I'
On Wed, Sep 07, 2011 at 01:38:09PM +1000, Peter Hutterer wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 06, 2011 at 07:38:53PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
>
> > plus a trac ticket. Whether it has some practical effect or not, it's
> > clearly against the current policy, and what I'm questioning is whether
> > Bodhi shoul
On Tue, Sep 06, 2011 at 07:38:53PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-09-07 at 11:00 +1000, Peter Hutterer wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 06, 2011 at 05:02:25PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > > I've mentioned before that I actually support this, but I'm in the
> > > minority, and AFAIK the cur
On Tue, 06 Sep 2011 17:02:25 -0700
Adam Williamson wrote:
> I've mentioned before that I actually support this, but I'm in the
> minority, and AFAIK the current policy is supposed to be that
> maintainers cannot upkarma updates they submitted themselves. However,
> this seems to be happening - ex
On Wed, 2011-09-07 at 11:00 +1000, Peter Hutterer wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 06, 2011 at 05:02:25PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > I've mentioned before that I actually support this, but I'm in the
> > minority, and AFAIK the current policy is supposed to be that
> > maintainers cannot upkarma updates
On Tue, Sep 06, 2011 at 08:09:03PM -0500, Richard Shaw wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 8:00 PM, Peter Hutterer
> wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 06, 2011 at 05:02:25PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> >> I've mentioned before that I actually support this, but I'm in the
> >> minority, and AFAIK the current
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 8:00 PM, Peter Hutterer wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 06, 2011 at 05:02:25PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
>> I've mentioned before that I actually support this, but I'm in the
>> minority, and AFAIK the current policy is supposed to be that
>> maintainers cannot upkarma updates they
On Tue, Sep 06, 2011 at 05:02:25PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> I've mentioned before that I actually support this, but I'm in the
> minority, and AFAIK the current policy is supposed to be that
> maintainers cannot upkarma updates they submitted themselves. However,
> this seems to be happening
I've mentioned before that I actually support this, but I'm in the
minority, and AFAIK the current policy is supposed to be that
maintainers cannot upkarma updates they submitted themselves. However,
this seems to be happening - exhibit a):
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/nss-3.12.10-7.fc1
48 matches
Mail list logo
