FESCo wants to ban direct stable pushes in Bodhi (urgent call for feedback)
mschwendt at gmail.com
Sat Feb 27 19:18:22 UTC 2010
On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 16:45:36 -0500, Bill wrote:
> > > To phrase a strawman differently:
> > >
> > > "No update is pushed to users without verification and testing from entities
> > > other than the packager."
> > No, thanks. The "popular"/"high profile" packages will get their usual
> > rushed +1 votes in bodhi (from people who even download from koji without
> > waiting for an entire package set to be published in a repo - from people
> > who regularly vote +1 even when something is clearly broken). And
> > less-popular packages will suffer.
> Again, that's just a "testing isn't working as well as we want right
> now, so let's just not bother with it at all because it might
> incovenience me" response.
Not at all. Go and take a look at how I've used testing/stable pushes
before. I just fear that I will be degraded to a package monkey, who must
obey more and more rules - arbitrary rules - just to please an updates
system OR the people who love needless bureaucracy (such as updates-testing
for F13 development, IMO).
When I submit an update request, I want to be done with it, so I can move
on and focus on more important stuff. I don't care whether any integrated
package sanity checks are run on the submitted packages, or whether it
takes a day or several days for a push to happen. If something is wrong
with the package and a person or tool reports it to me, fine, I'll take a
look. Provided that it's no silly rules like Notes field is empty (even if
bugzilla ticket links are present and %changelog contains good entries),
a missing link to an online ChangeLog, enforced delays before something
may be marked stable, or mandatory positive karma from testers.
> If that's the sort of defeatist attitude people really want to take,
> it's sad.
Sad? It's sad if one cannot earn more trust and retain the freedom to
make the most out of existing tools and infrastructure.
Some of the off-topic parts of this thread are unbelievable.
> > > Consider it a second eye.
> > If there is a volunteer tester, who also takes responsibility when not
> > noticing regression caused by an update, fine. If there is no volunteer,
> > who will lend the update submitter a second eye? Either there are
> > resources or there aren't.
> I said entities above. Could be testers. Could be releng. Could be a
> battery of autoQA tests.
Three times "Could". Let's talk about it when you know something definite,
please, but before it will become another hurdle.
More information about the devel