Fwd: [FESCo] #667: Request to fix CRITPATH update process

Doug Ledford dledford at redhat.com
Fri Sep 9 17:26:57 UTC 2011


I've grown entirely too fed up with the CRITPATH approval process.
Here's my Fedora FESCo TRAC ticket requesting that the issue be solved
and providing a suggested solution.  If you agree, you might want to put
your +1 in the ticket.  If you disagree because you think you have a
better solution, please feel free to update the ticket with your own
proposal.  But it's well past time that this debacle get fixed.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [FESCo] #667: Request to fix CRITPATH update process
Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2011 17:22:54 -0000
From: FESCo <trac at fedorahosted.org>
Reply-To: nobody at fedoraproject.org
CC: fesco at lists.fedoraproject.org, tcallawa at redhat.com,
limb at jcomserv.net,        toshio at fedoraproject.org

#667: Request to fix CRITPATH update process
---------------------+------------------------------------------------------
Reporter:  dledford  |      Owner:
    Type:  task      |     Status:  new
Priority:  blocker   |   Keywords:
---------------------+------------------------------------------------------
 = Proposal topic =

 I have objected, many times, to the CRITPATH update process on the devel
 mailing list.  This has, obviously, done nothing.  I'm now filing this
 ticket as my last resort to get the issue fixed.

 = Overview =

 I object to the CRITPATH process on the basis that it makes it impossible
 for the maintainer of a package to actually have the power to fix users'
 problems in a timely manner yet holds the package maintainer accountable
 for fixing users' problems.  It is unethical to make a person accountable
 for something over which they don't actually have the power to control.

 I would cite my current f16 mdadm update as an example.  It originally had
 mdadm-3.2.2-8.fc16 as the package in testing with one bug, which was
 verified to resolve the problem (732818).  Before the update was approved,
 I modified the update with mdadm-3.2.2-9 due to another bug, which has
 since been verified (and which is a non-boot issue for some people,
 729205).  All total, the update has now lingered for 43 days.  Yesterday,
 I was assigned bug 736530.  In that bug, Adam Williamson made this
 comment:

 note that this is a Beta blocker bug through 731177's dependence on it, so
 please prioritize - thanks!

 I think it's very appropriate here to point out that when my update that
 fixes known bugs that prevent proper bootup have lingered for 43 days, to
 have someone tell me essentially "this is important, get on it!" is a huge
 slap in the face.  My response to this treatment is a resounding FU.  FU
 and the horse you rode in on.

 = Problem space =

 Maintainers need sufficient power to solve users' problems.

 = Solution Overview =

 I propose that the CRITPATH update acceptance criteria be modified as
 such:

 Any CRITPATH update shall be approved immediately when any one of the
 three following conditions are met:

 1) All bugs listed on the update have been transitioned from ON_QA to
 VERIFIED indicating that the CRITPATH update solves the issues it is
 intended to solve.  If the update creates new issues after release, then
 there will be a new CRITPATH update with new bugs to solve those issues.
 2) The update receives a total of +3 karma with at least one proven tester
 +1 karma.
 3) The update reaches an age of two weeks and nag mails are now being
 sent.

 = Active Ingredients =

 What groups/systems/things are involved and/or affected by the proposal?

 Unknown, I don't know the internals of the CRITPATH implementation.

 = Owners =

 Who owns this proposal?

 Whoever created the god awful process we have in place now ought to be
 responsible for cleaning up their own damn mess.

-- 
Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/667>
FESCo <http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Development/SteeringCommittee>
Fedora Engineering Steering Commitee

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 260 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20110909/6a8709f6/attachment.bin 


More information about the devel mailing list