Working update sitting in testing

[Suvayu Ali]

Hi,

I had submitted an RFE to include info docs for python in Fedora end of
last summer.  Eventually I ended up working on it with some help, and
there was a working update submitted in December.  This has been sitting
in updates-testing since then.  What needs to be done to get this to
stable?  Does it need more karma?  In that case could people on this
list please test and submit feedback.

The updates:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-22552/python-docs-2.7.5-6.fc20
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-22611/python-docs-2.7.5-6.fc19

Thanks,

[Bruno Wolff III]

On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 12:24:07 +0100,
   Suvayu Ali  wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I had submitted an RFE to include info docs for python in Fedora end of
> last summer.  Eventually I ended up working on it with some help, and
> there was a working update submitted in December.  This has been sitting
> in updates-testing since then.  What needs to be done to get this to
> stable?  Does it need more karma?  In that case could people on this
> list please test and submit feedback.

The person that submitted the build to bohdi should be able to request 
a push to stable after this much time. Then it will move to stable shortly 
(around a day).

Extra karma could also reach the auto push threshold, which would 
accomplish the same thing.

[Suvayu Ali]

Hi Bruno,

On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 05:29:53AM -0600, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 12:24:07 +0100,
>   Suvayu Ali  wrote:
> > I had submitted an RFE to include info docs for python in Fedora end of
> > last summer.  Eventually I ended up working on it with some help, and
> > there was a working update submitted in December.  This has been sitting
> > in updates-testing since then.  What needs to be done to get this to
> > stable?  Does it need more karma?  In that case could people on this
> > list please test and submit feedback.
>
> The person that submitted the build to bohdi should be able to request a
> push to stable after this much time. Then it will move to stable shortly
> (around a day).

Thanks for the clarification.  I posted a comment on the corresponding
bug report half a week back, but I doubt anyone is paying attention.
The report was closed as WONTFIX automatically when F18 EOLed.
> Extra karma could also reach the auto push threshold, which would accomplish
> the same thing.

If users on this list could test and add a few karmas, it would be
really helpful.  This update adds a new subpackage with the python info
documentation.  To test, all one needs to do is install python-docs-info
from updates-testing, and see if the following lets you access the docs:
from a shell `info python', and from Emacs `C-h i m python RET'.

Thanks,

[Ranjan Maitra]

> > The person that submitted the build to bohdi should be able to request a
> > push to stable after this much time. Then it will move to stable shortly
> > (around a day).
>
> Thanks for the clarification.  I posted a comment on the corresponding
> bug report half a week back, but I doubt anyone is paying attention.
> The report was closed as WONTFIX automatically when F18 EOLed.

This is what I find frustrating about the whole thing. Most maintainers
put in a WONTFIX only after it becomes clear that there is no reason to
do so (either the software is going out of business in Fedora or the
software will not be maintained, etc). However, there are some who take
inexplicable decisions. Case in point: look at the bug

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=914861

zathura 2.6 was released even before F20 was released but the
maintainer appears not to want to release it on F20 and will keep it
at 2.4 all through F21 perhaps, since rawhide appears to be F22? Why? No
one knows. These policies appear to be completely arbitrary.

Another bug, which made me give up on LXDE (I have gone back to only
using a WM), now has a potential patch submitted:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=820514

but no response for a long time. (I suspect that the maintainer
Christoph Wickert is no longer a LXDE user.)

I understand that all these maintainers are volunteers, but some
consistency would be helpful. This will drive people, especially bug
reporters who are far fewer than the general Fedora population, out
into the shadows (of not reporting bugs).

I have to say however that most of the maintainers are very responsive
and the rationale for their decisions is solid. It is the few
inexplicable ones that can make it frustrating!

Ranjan

____________________________________________________________
GET FREE SMILEYS FOR YOUR IM & EMAIL - Learn more at http://www.inbox.com/smileys
Works with AIM®, MSN® Messenger, Yahoo!® Messenger, ICQ®, Google Talk™ and most webmails

[Matthew Miller]

On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 08:08:05AM -0600, Ranjan Maitra wrote:
> zathura 2.6 was released even before F20 was released but the
> maintainer appears not to want to release it on F20 and will keep it
> at 2.4 all through F21 perhaps, since rawhide appears to be F22? Why? No
> one knows. These policies appear to be completely arbitrary.

The policy is at

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Updates_Policy#Stable_Releases

and it does leave a lot of individual discretion to the package maintainers,
who are a diverse bunch and tend to have different attitudes.

Often it helps if you can put specific reason you need or want a newer
version. "It's got a bigger number" isn't necessarily compelling, but if it
fixes a bug or provides a feature you need, that might change the equation.
And of course the package maintainer should know this, but it's helpful to
note if you know that the update doesn't have backwards-compatibility
issues or major UI changes.

[Ranjan Maitra]

On Sat, 15 Feb 2014 09:26:06 -0500 Matthew Miller
 wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 08:08:05AM -0600, Ranjan Maitra wrote:
> > zathura 2.6 was released even before F20 was released but the
> > maintainer appears not to want to release it on F20 and will keep it
> > at 2.4 all through F21 perhaps, since rawhide appears to be F22? Why? No
> > one knows. These policies appear to be completely arbitrary.
>
> The policy is at
>
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Updates_Policy#Stable_Releases
>
> and it does leave a lot of individual discretion to the package maintainers,
> who are a diverse bunch and tend to have different attitudes.
>
> Often it helps if you can put specific reason you need or want a newer
> version. "It's got a bigger number" isn't necessarily compelling, but if it
> fixes a bug or provides a feature you need, that might change the equation.
> And of course the package maintainer should know this, but it's helpful to
> note if you know that the update doesn't have backwards-compatibility
> issues or major UI changes.

Of course. But the LXDE bug (and this is not from LXDE actually, but in
Fedora packaging) has been around since F14! Also, I don't quite
understand the virtue of not releasing a Fedora installation
with the latest version (as far as practical) and pushing it off at
least two releases later is questionable, given that the software
itself is also evolving.

The zathura updates (we are two versions behind now) has some fixes:

0.2.6 (2013/11/24)

Update documentation
    Resolve layout problems

0.2.5 (2013/11/08)

Use GTK+3 by default
    Rewritten render logic
    Fixed page refresh in certain situations
    Make the X clipboard buffer
    Allow number in quickmarks
    Workaround for print quality issues
    Update documentation
    Updated translations

As far as I can tell, resolving layout problems is a good idea. The
print quality is major. The most frustrating part is that we don't know
why this is being held off till F22.

Ranjan

____________________________________________________________
FREE 3D MARINE AQUARIUM SCREENSAVER - Watch dolphins, sharks & orcas on your desktop!
Check it out at http://www.inbox.com/marineaquarium

[Suvayu Ali]

On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 08:08:05AM -0600, Ranjan Maitra wrote:
> > > The person that submitted the build to bohdi should be able to request a
> > > push to stable after this much time. Then it will move to stable shortly
> > > (around a day).
> >
> > Thanks for the clarification.  I posted a comment on the corresponding
> > bug report half a week back, but I doubt anyone is paying attention.
> > The report was closed as WONTFIX automatically when F18 EOLed.
>
> This is what I find frustrating about the whole thing. Most maintainers
> put in a WONTFIX only after it becomes clear that there is no reason to
> do so (either the software is going out of business in Fedora or the
> software will not be maintained, etc). However, there are some who take
> inexplicable decisions. Case in point: look at the bug

Please do not misunderstand my post.  The WONTFIX was an automatic
change because F18 EOLed.  The maintainers were very helpful in helping
me work on the update.  This is not a critical enhancement, despite that
they invested enough time and effort that I could make the necessary
changes.

[Michael Schwendt]

On Sat, 15 Feb 2014 17:59:23 +0100, Suvayu Ali wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 08:08:05AM -0600, Ranjan Maitra wrote:
> > > > The person that submitted the build to bohdi should be able to request a
> > > > push to stable after this much time. Then it will move to stable shortly
> > > > (around a day).
> > >
> > > Thanks for the clarification.  I posted a comment on the corresponding
> > > bug report half a week back, but I doubt anyone is paying attention.
> > > The report was closed as WONTFIX automatically when F18 EOLed.
> >
> > This is what I find frustrating about the whole thing. Most maintainers
> > put in a WONTFIX only after it becomes clear that there is no reason to
> > do so (either the software is going out of business in Fedora or the
> > software will not be maintained, etc). However, there are some who take
> > inexplicable decisions. Case in point: look at the bug
>
> Please do not misunderstand my post.  The WONTFIX was an automatic
> change because F18 EOLed.

Because the ticket was still open during that process. It could have been
closed by the maintainer. The updates in bodhi for F20 and F19 could have
been marked as stable by the maintainer, too (maintainers get a
notification by bodhi, btw). There are not enough testers for all these
updates.

[T.C. Hollingsworth]

On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 4:24 AM, Suvayu Ali  wrote:
> Does it need more karma?  In that case could people on this
> list please test and submit feedback.

Done.  :-)  Should be in updates-stable in the next push.

-T.C.

[Suvayu Ali]

On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 01:05:21PM -0700, T.C. Hollingsworth wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 4:24 AM, Suvayu Ali  wrote:
> > Does it need more karma?  In that case could people on this
> > list please test and submit feedback.
>
> Done.  :-)  Should be in updates-stable in the next push.

Thank you!