Why are 0 karma updates still being released?

[Mike Fedyk]

Here is a sampling of the recent updates that have been pushed to
stable.  There are more, I didn't look at every update.

Released straight to stable:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gdb-7.0.1-47.fc12
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ClanLib-2.1.1-1.fc12
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/fuse-convmvfs-0.2.5-1.fc12

Pushed to testing and then to stable a few days later with zero karma.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/bti-026-1.fc12
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/vidalia-0.2.9-1.fc12
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/EekBoek-2.00.02-1.fc12
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/fsarchiver-0.6.10-1.fc12

Why are we still pushing to stable or submitting directly to stable
without people other than the packager testing it?

[Remi Collet]

Le 03/06/2010 07:04, Rahul Sundaram a écrit :

> > If a package does not get negative karma, I think the 2-week-wait
> / 
> > push-to-stable treatment is reasonable. YMMV.  
+1

>  With the exception of critical security and bug fixes which needs to
> be
>  tested but for a shorter period of time. 
+1

I also encounter some very bad user experience
- A user ask for a new branch / version of a package
- I do the job and push it to updates-testing
- After a few weeks, no feedback

Really frustrated... :(

So, I could have left it in testing forever, but I prefer to push it to
stable (no bad karma), mainly because I don't want to manage a too long
list of packages waiting in testing...

Karma is really a great tool, but not enough used...

+

P.S. an example
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mysql++-3.0.9-4.el5

[Rahul Sundaram]

On 06/03/2010 10:28 AM, Darr wrote:
>  I think few people are aware of the fedora-easy-karma package, let
> alone the 
>  workings of bodhi.
>
>  If a package does not get negative karma, I think the 2-week-wait / 
>  push-to-stable treatment is reasonable. YMMV. 
>     
With the exception of critical security and bug fixes which needs to be
tested but for a shorter period of time.

Rahul

[Darr]

I think few people are aware of the fedora-easy-karma package, let alone the 
workings of bodhi.

If a package does not get negative karma, I think the 2-week-wait / 
push-to-stable treatment is reasonable. YMMV.

[Sam Varshavchik]

Mike Fedyk writes:

>  Pushed to testing and then to stable a few days later with zero
> karma.
>  https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/bti-026-1.fc12
>  https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/vidalia-0.2.9-1.fc12
>  https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/EekBoek-2.00.02-1.fc12
>  https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/fsarchiver-0.6.10-1.fc12
>  
>  Why are we still pushing to stable or submitting directly to stable
>  without people other than the packager testing it? 
Maybe because nobody is aware that something's waiting for some karma out 
there?

I see that openssh was pushed to stable recently. I might've been willing to 
grab it from testing and give it whirl, but I'm not sure how I would've 
known about it. Whatever this errata fixed, it obviously didn't affect me, 
so I was not aware of the open bug, and a pending errata.

It's just a hunch, but here's what I think happens most of the time: someone 
files a bug, the maintainer picks it up, fixes the bug, pushes the package 
to testing.

So, you've really got just the bug reporter who's interested in the errata, 
and is even aware of a package. And most of the time it's an ordinary user 
who is not even aware of the underlying infrastructure. A canned message 
gets appended to the Bugzilla entry, saying something to the effect that a 
package was "pushed" somewhere. The bug reporter may not be aware of the 
fact that there's some kind of a mechanism to rate the pending update. The 
bug reporter is most likely waiting until he gets a popup from Packagekit, 
telling him that an update is ready.

I had someone file a bug against my small, obscure package. It was an 
enhancement. I finally got around to coding it, tarring it up (I'm my own 
upstream), then grabbing it with my maintainer hat, building it, and pushing 
it to testing.

So, how long should I wait for some karma? In the past, I've waited two 
weeks before requesting a push to stable. Is there a policy document 
somewhere that lays down the law, on this?

[Stephen Gallagher]

On 06/02/2010 08:31 PM, Mike Fedyk wrote:
>  Here is a sampling of the recent updates that have been pushed to
>  stable.  There are more, I didn't look at every update.
>
>  Released straight to stable:
>  https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gdb-7.0.1-47.fc12
>  https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ClanLib-2.1.1-1.fc12
>  https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/fuse-convmvfs-0.2.5-1.fc12
>
>  Pushed to testing and then to stable a few days later with zero karma.
>  https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/bti-026-1.fc12
>  https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/vidalia-0.2.9-1.fc12
>  https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/EekBoek-2.00.02-1.fc12
>  https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/fsarchiver-0.6.10-1.fc12
>
>  Why are we still pushing to stable or submitting directly to stable
>  without people other than the packager testing it? 
I can't speak for the specific packages above, but I will sometimes push 
a package stable to Fedora N-1 that is identical to a package in Fedora 
N if the package in Fedora N got sufficient Karma. Maybe that's what 
happened here?



-- 
Stephen Gallagher
RHCE 804006346421761

Delivering value year after year.
Red Hat ranks #1 in value among software vendors.
http://www.redhat.com/promo/vendor/