Re: Report from Debconf's QA BOF
Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > On 25/11/08 at 20:42 -0600, Raphael Geissert wrote: >> The default policy is going to be: orphaned packages are not candidates in Err s/The default policy is going to be/The proposed policy is >> shape for a release; but as Luk said, the severity might be lowered if needed >> (such case would be discussed whenever such a case exists; /me trying to >> answer Lucas' question). > > I think that it's too early to say what the default policy is going to > be. After lenny is released, we will have to discuss this with other > parties involved (probably RM/QA first, then everybody else). Of course, > the outcome of the DebConf BOF should be used as a basis. Sure, it is release team's decision afterall. Cheers, -- Raphael Geissert - Debian Maintainer www.debian.org - get.debian.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Report from Debconf's QA BOF
Raphael Geissert wrote: If nobody cares enough to report "anything" then why should we keep them? I think that's the main rationale here. Of course, making it a release goal (as in terms of RC, not RG) would allow anyone to know that if nothing happens it won't be shipped, thereby making people react to those problems (yes, having orphaned packages is a problem). That's what I meant, of course. My point is that orphaned packages with a large user base and no reported RC bugs should not get dropped _just_ because they are orphaned. I'm well aware that orphans are a problem. Doesn't really bear that much discussion, as actual practice works about right. cheers, tim -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Report from Debconf's QA BOF
On 25/11/08 at 20:42 -0600, Raphael Geissert wrote: > [no CC please] > > tim hall wrote: > > Steve Langasek wrote: > >> On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 12:01:26AM -0300, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > - O: bugs are now RC, so packages are removed from testing using the > > release team's existing policies. Which means that some O: packages > > might stay in testing for a longer time because they are dependencies > > of other packages. > >> > Were members of the release team represented in this BoF? > >> > >>> Sure, Luk was here, and didn't express any disagreement. Actually, I > >>> tried hard to give several opportunities to raise concerns, but > >>> everybody apparently really agreed with the proposal. > >> > >> Hrm, ok... well, I still disagree, but I seem to be overruled :) > > > > FWIW I agree with Steve here. I think a package should be identified as > > 'broken' in order to force removal. > > Quoting Luk: > > The orphanage bug being RC does only mean that it needs to be adopted, > > removed (from unstable and/or testing) or downgraded before the next > > release IMHO. > > The default policy is going to be: orphaned packages are not candidates in > shape > for a release; but as Luk said, the severity might be lowered if needed (such > case would be discussed whenever such a case exists; /me trying to answer > Lucas' question). I think that it's too early to say what the default policy is going to be. After lenny is released, we will have to discuss this with other parties involved (probably RM/QA first, then everybody else). Of course, the outcome of the DebConf BOF should be used as a basis. -- | Lucas Nussbaum | [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ | | jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F | -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Report from Debconf's QA BOF
[no CC please] tim hall wrote: > Steve Langasek wrote: >> On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 12:01:26AM -0300, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > - O: bugs are now RC, so packages are removed from testing using the > release team's existing policies. Which means that some O: packages > might stay in testing for a longer time because they are dependencies > of other packages. >> Were members of the release team represented in this BoF? >> >>> Sure, Luk was here, and didn't express any disagreement. Actually, I >>> tried hard to give several opportunities to raise concerns, but >>> everybody apparently really agreed with the proposal. >> >> Hrm, ok... well, I still disagree, but I seem to be overruled :) > > FWIW I agree with Steve here. I think a package should be identified as > 'broken' in order to force removal. Quoting Luk: > The orphanage bug being RC does only mean that it needs to be adopted, > removed (from unstable and/or testing) or downgraded before the next > release IMHO. The default policy is going to be: orphaned packages are not candidates in shape for a release; but as Luk said, the severity might be lowered if needed (such case would be discussed whenever such a case exists; /me trying to answer Lucas' question). > Obviously an allowance needs to be > made for packages with really low popcon scores as it's possible that > no-one cares enough to report anything. If nobody cares enough to report "anything" then why should we keep them? I think that's the main rationale here. Of course, making it a release goal (as in terms of RC, not RG) would allow anyone to know that if nothing happens it won't be shipped, thereby making people react to those problems (yes, having orphaned packages is a problem). Please note that I'm trying to express what was expressed and discussed during the BoF, and I apologise in advance if I missed anything (relevant to this email) or I generalised too much. > > cheers, > > tim Cheers, -- Raphael Geissert - Debian Maintainer www.debian.org - get.debian.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Report from Debconf's QA BOF
Steve Langasek wrote: On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 12:01:26AM -0300, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: - O: bugs are now RC, so packages are removed from testing using the release team's existing policies. Which means that some O: packages might stay in testing for a longer time because they are dependencies of other packages. Were members of the release team represented in this BoF? Sure, Luk was here, and didn't express any disagreement. Actually, I tried hard to give several opportunities to raise concerns, but everybody apparently really agreed with the proposal. Hrm, ok... well, I still disagree, but I seem to be overruled :) FWIW I agree with Steve here. I think a package should be identified as 'broken' in order to force removal. Obviously an allowance needs to be made for packages with really low popcon scores as it's possible that no-one cares enough to report anything. cheers, tim -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Report from Debconf's QA BOF
On 21/08/08 at 23:13 +0200, Holger Levsen wrote: > Hi, > > On Friday 15 August 2008 05:16, Steve Langasek wrote: > > > (you might want to check the video when it will be available) > > From experience, there seems to be a several-month delay before videos > > become available after DebConf. > > http://meetings-archive.debian.net/pub/debian-meetings/2008/debconf8/low/645_QA_BoF_part_II.ogg > > (The high quality version will be available shortly (might take a week or two > though), but "only" has better video and stereo instead of mono.) > > Was there a QA BoF part I? Penta knows nothing about it. Sure: http://meetings-archive.debian.net/pub/debian-meetings/2008/debconf8/low/545_Quality_Assurance_in_lenny+1.ogg -- | Lucas Nussbaum | [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ | | jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Report from Debconf's QA BOF
On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 11:13:38PM +0200, Holger Levsen wrote: > On Friday 15 August 2008 05:16, Steve Langasek wrote: > > > (you might want to check the video when it will be available) > > From experience, there seems to be a several-month delay before videos > > become available after DebConf. > http://meetings-archive.debian.net/pub/debian-meetings/2008/debconf8/low/645_QA_BoF_part_II.ogg > (The high quality version will be available shortly (might take a week or two > though), but "only" has better video and stereo instead of mono.) Ah, apparently this process has been optimized somewhat, and "several months" is far too pessimistic. :) Thanks! Off-topic, but is there some way that the videos could be linked from the penta pages for the sessions? It would be really nice to be able to have the talk summary, notes/slides, and video all available in one place. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Report from Debconf's QA BOF
Hi, On Friday 15 August 2008 05:16, Steve Langasek wrote: > > (you might want to check the video when it will be available) > From experience, there seems to be a several-month delay before videos > become available after DebConf. http://meetings-archive.debian.net/pub/debian-meetings/2008/debconf8/low/645_QA_BoF_part_II.ogg (The high quality version will be available shortly (might take a week or two though), but "only" has better video and stereo instead of mono.) Was there a QA BoF part I? Penta knows nothing about it. regards, Holger pgp8YoSTxHVQx.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Report from Debconf's QA BOF
On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 05:45:52PM +0200, Frank S. Thomas wrote: > I think it would also be nice if wnpp-alert could sort packages by popcon > score so that developers know which packages are "more worth" adopting. Anyone interested in creating infrastructure to bring popcon data into a system and bring it up to date, please keep me in the loop. It is something I've always intended to do (and there is place in apt-xapian-index to index it, and code to make use of the information). goplay can already use popcon information, but it requires users to download it by hand, which is suboptimal. Ideally, whatever would donwload popcon, could also be a general way to regularly download other sorts of package information into the system, and possibly to also acquire them from installed debian packages to have the data available when installing a stable version from CD. Ciao, Enrico -- GPG key: 1024D/797EBFAB 2000-12-05 Enrico Zini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Report from Debconf's QA BOF
On 15/08/08 at 12:30 -0400, Joey Hess wrote: > Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > Sure, Luk was here, and didn't express any disagreement. Actually, I > > tried hard to give several opportunities to raise concerns, but > > everybody apparently really agreed with the proposal. (you might want to > > check the video when it will be available) > > That wasn't really my impression watching the video. I seem to recall > Bdale arguing persuasively that this would be a bad idea, for one. I think that Bdale's point was about removals from unstable (the bapase stuff), for which, indeed, I agree that we need to be extremely careful, and that we must always try to contact the maintainer. I don't think that he opposed what was discussed about the handling of orphaned packages. If I remember correctly, the discussion about orphaned packages went quite well, then we switched to removals from unstable, Ganneff talked, and then Bdale. Please correct me if I'm wrong. FWIW, my motivation for that is not to reduce archive size by removing tons of packages, but to increase the visibility of orphaned packages, so those which are useful to someone find an adopter. Each time I run wnpp-alert, I'm amazed by what I read, and I can't adopt everything I use, unfortunately. > (IMHO: Horrible idea, will tend to result in maintainers not orphaning > packages and instead letting them rot unmaintained.) Isn't it already the case? Do you have something better to propose? Or do you think that we can continue to ignore that >5% of our archive doesn't have a maintainer? -- | Lucas Nussbaum | [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ | | jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F | -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Report from Debconf's QA BOF
Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > Sure, Luk was here, and didn't express any disagreement. Actually, I > tried hard to give several opportunities to raise concerns, but > everybody apparently really agreed with the proposal. (you might want to > check the video when it will be available) That wasn't really my impression watching the video. I seem to recall Bdale arguing persuasively that this would be a bad idea, for one. (IMHO: Horrible idea, will tend to result in maintainers not orphaning packages and instead letting them rot unmaintained.) -- see shy jo signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Report from Debconf's QA BOF
On Fri, 2008-08-15 at 17:45 +0200, Frank S. Thomas wrote: [...] > I think it would also be nice if wnpp-alert could sort packages by popcon > score so that developers know which packages are "more worth" adopting. That would be #478835. Adam (who really should be packing and not reading mail :-) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Report from Debconf's QA BOF
On Friday 15 August 2008 15:52:55 Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 09:21:30AM +0300, Martin Michlmayr wrote: > > These are included already: > >wnpp-alert - check for installed packages up for adoption or orphaned > >rc-alert - check for installed packages with release-critical bugs > > > > Ah, according to #495152 you want cronjobs around those scripts, I > > see. > > Yep. Additionally, we also discussed the idea of having a single script > instead of multiple ones, with a single configuration entry and possibly > sane defaults. Cc-ing the bugreport to store this wish. I think it would also be nice if wnpp-alert could sort packages by popcon score so that developers know which packages are "more worth" adopting. Cheers, Frank -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Report from Debconf's QA BOF
On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 09:21:30AM +0300, Martin Michlmayr wrote: > These are included already: >wnpp-alert - check for installed packages up for adoption or orphaned >rc-alert - check for installed packages with release-critical bugs > > Ah, according to #495152 you want cronjobs around those scripts, I > see. Yep. Additionally, we also discussed the idea of having a single script instead of multiple ones, with a single configuration entry and possibly sane defaults. Cc-ing the bugreport to store this wish. Cheers. -- Stefano Zacchiroli -*- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7 [EMAIL PROTECTED],pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -<>- http://upsilon.cc/zack/ I'm still an SGML person,this newfangled /\ All one has to do is hit the XML stuff is so ... simplistic -- Manoj \/ right keys at the right time signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Report from Debconf's QA BOF
On 15/08/08 at 05:49 +0200, Luk Claes wrote: > Steve Langasek wrote: >> On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 12:01:26AM -0300, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > - O: bugs are now RC, so packages are removed from testing using the > release team's existing policies. Which means that some O: packages > might stay in testing for a longer time because they are dependencies > of other packages. >> Were members of the release team represented in this BoF? >> >>> Sure, Luk was here, and didn't express any disagreement. Actually, I >>> tried hard to give several opportunities to raise concerns, but >>> everybody apparently really agreed with the proposal. >> >> Hrm, ok... well, I still disagree, but I seem to be overruled :) > > The orphanage bug being RC does only mean that it needs to be adopted, > removed (from unstable and/or testing) or downgraded before the next > release IMHO. The three options should still be possible, but at least > they are actively being watched as having non-maintained packages in the > release should be avoided if possible IMHO. Could you give an example case where you would want to downgrade an orphaned package's bug? L. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Report from Debconf's QA BOF
On 15/08/08 at 09:21 +0300, Martin Michlmayr wrote: > * Lucas Nussbaum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-08-14 18:16]: > > The idea of having a script inside devscripts that lists the RC-buggy > > and orphaned packages that are locally installed was proposed. I filed a > > bug about that. See #495152 > > These are included already: >wnpp-alert - check for installed packages up for adoption or orphaned >rc-alert - check for installed packages with release-critical bugs > > Ah, according to #495152 you want cronjobs around those scripts, I > see. Yeah, sorry, I was probably too tired when I wrote the report. :-) -- | Lucas Nussbaum | [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ | | jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F | -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Report from Debconf's QA BOF
* Lucas Nussbaum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-08-14 18:16]: > The idea of having a script inside devscripts that lists the RC-buggy > and orphaned packages that are locally installed was proposed. I filed a > bug about that. See #495152 These are included already: wnpp-alert - check for installed packages up for adoption or orphaned rc-alert - check for installed packages with release-critical bugs Ah, according to #495152 you want cronjobs around those scripts, I see. -- Martin Michlmayr http://www.cyrius.com/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Report from Debconf's QA BOF
Steve Langasek wrote: On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 12:01:26AM -0300, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: - O: bugs are now RC, so packages are removed from testing using the release team's existing policies. Which means that some O: packages might stay in testing for a longer time because they are dependencies of other packages. Were members of the release team represented in this BoF? Sure, Luk was here, and didn't express any disagreement. Actually, I tried hard to give several opportunities to raise concerns, but everybody apparently really agreed with the proposal. Hrm, ok... well, I still disagree, but I seem to be overruled :) The orphanage bug being RC does only mean that it needs to be adopted, removed (from unstable and/or testing) or downgraded before the next release IMHO. The three options should still be possible, but at least they are actively being watched as having non-maintained packages in the release should be avoided if possible IMHO. Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Report from Debconf's QA BOF
On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 12:01:26AM -0300, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > > - O: bugs are now RC, so packages are removed from testing using the > > > release team's existing policies. Which means that some O: packages > > > might stay in testing for a longer time because they are dependencies > > > of other packages. > > Were members of the release team represented in this BoF? > Sure, Luk was here, and didn't express any disagreement. Actually, I > tried hard to give several opportunities to raise concerns, but > everybody apparently really agreed with the proposal. Hrm, ok... well, I still disagree, but I seem to be overruled :) > (you might want to check the video when it will be available) >From experience, there seems to be a several-month delay before videos become available after DebConf. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Report from Debconf's QA BOF
On 14/08/08 at 19:41 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 06:16:43PM -0300, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > Here is a list of what was discussed/agreed upon during Debconf's QA > > BOF. > > > Handling of orphaned packages > > = > > After lenny release, the handling of O, ITA and RFA bugs will be > > changed. > > - O:, ITA: and RFA: are reassigned to the package they are about. > > - They are marked as affecting wnpp (new BTS feature) so they show up in > > the wnpp page > > - Severities: O: serious > > RFA: not serious > > ITA: keeps the severity of the previous state > > - O: bugs are now RC, so packages are removed from testing using the > > release team's existing policies. Which means that some O: packages > > might stay in testing for a longer time because they are dependencies > > of other packages. > > Were members of the release team represented in this BoF? Sure, Luk was here, and didn't express any disagreement. Actually, I tried hard to give several opportunities to raise concerns, but everybody apparently really agreed with the proposal. (you might want to check the video when it will be available) -- | Lucas Nussbaum | [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ | | jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F | -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Report from Debconf's QA BOF
On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 06:16:43PM -0300, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > Here is a list of what was discussed/agreed upon during Debconf's QA > BOF. > Handling of orphaned packages > = > After lenny release, the handling of O, ITA and RFA bugs will be > changed. > - O:, ITA: and RFA: are reassigned to the package they are about. > - They are marked as affecting wnpp (new BTS feature) so they show up in > the wnpp page > - Severities: O: serious > RFA: not serious > ITA: keeps the severity of the previous state > - O: bugs are now RC, so packages are removed from testing using the > release team's existing policies. Which means that some O: packages > might stay in testing for a longer time because they are dependencies > of other packages. Were members of the release team represented in this BoF? I'm surprised that this would be considered release-critical per se; I really don't see the justification for excluding packages without known bugs from a stable release just because they don't have a maintainer, when in fact there are many packages /with/ maintainers that are in comparable condition. Cheers, -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
