Re: bodhi 0.9.3 deployed to production
Adam Williamson wrote: There seems to be a mania for CURRENTRELEASE lately. I don't know where it's coming from. Well, it used to be what we used in the beginnings of Fedora. It got changed to ERRATA because that makes a lot more sense. The policy clearly states ERRATA: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/BugStatusWorkFlow#CLOSED Thanks for confirming this. I filed: https://fedorahosted.org/bodhi/ticket/704 Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: bodhi 0.9.3 deployed to production
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 05:52:23AM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: Luke Macken wrote: A new bugfix release of Bodhi has just been deployed to production. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates Bugs and enhancement requests can be filed here: http://bodhi.fedorahosted.org This seems to be closing bugs as CURRENTRELEASE rather than ERRATA now, is that intentional? If yes, why? This change slipped through the cracks when fixing a problem with closing bugs with python-bugzilla. https://fedorahosted.org/bodhi/changeset/0f2651f2095bc5952468d2eb0af39ecc077521e3/ I just changed it back to CLOSED-ERRATA in git. Thanks for the heads up, luke -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: bodhi 0.9.3 deployed to production
Luke Macken wrote: A new bugfix release of Bodhi has just been deployed to production. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates Bugs and enhancement requests can be filed here: http://bodhi.fedorahosted.org This seems to be closing bugs as CURRENTRELEASE rather than ERRATA now, is that intentional? If yes, why? Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: bodhi 0.9.3 deployed to production
On Thu, 2012-11-15 at 05:52 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: Luke Macken wrote: A new bugfix release of Bodhi has just been deployed to production. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates Bugs and enhancement requests can be filed here: http://bodhi.fedorahosted.org This seems to be closing bugs as CURRENTRELEASE rather than ERRATA now, is that intentional? If yes, why? There seems to be a mania for CURRENTRELEASE lately. I don't know where it's coming from. The policy clearly states ERRATA: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/BugStatusWorkFlow#CLOSED Now admittedly the policy is more or less something I pulled out of my ass a few years ago and I have my suspicions as to how many people a) have ever read it (few) or b) care (fewer). But hey, it's there. In the end we rarely do anything with the resolutions anyway, so I stopped caring as much as I used to, but at least our official tools should probably follow what are nominally our policies. Note that Fedora's policy differs *significantly* from Red Hat's here, as Fedora's update workflow is entirely different from RHEL's. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/page.cgi?id=fields.html - the 'help' page you get by clicking on various bits of a bug page - is RHEL's policy, not Fedora's. There is a link to the Fedora policy at the top of it. Unfortunately, most of the links to the fields.html page jump into the middle of it with anchors, so no-one sees the link. The other problem with our policy is that it's somewhat of a hack job, because it involves taking the resolutions that were written for RHEL's update process and make sense in that context and applying them the Fedora update process, in which context they really don't make sense at all. So several of the choices are just arbitrary decisions I made when I was writing the smegging thing. This is of course one of the drawbacks of sharing a bug tracker with RHEL, but then the point is always made that the effort of having our own would outweigh the benefits. Still, even in RHEL's policy, CURRENTRELEASE is clearly wrong for a straightforward 'this was a bug that got fixed and we pushed an update' case, so I don't know why people are suddenly plumping for it, other than that it somehow 'sounds right'. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: bodhi 0.9.3 deployed to production
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 6:15 AM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote: On Thu, 2012-11-15 at 05:52 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: Luke Macken wrote: A new bugfix release of Bodhi has just been deployed to production. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates Bugs and enhancement requests can be filed here: http://bodhi.fedorahosted.org This seems to be closing bugs as CURRENTRELEASE rather than ERRATA now, is that intentional? If yes, why? There seems to be a mania for CURRENTRELEASE lately. I don't know where it's coming from. The policy clearly states ERRATA: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/BugStatusWorkFlow#CLOSED Now admittedly the policy is more or less something I pulled out of my ass a few years ago and I have my suspicions as to how many people a) have ever read it (few) or b) care (fewer). But hey, it's there. In the end we rarely do anything with the resolutions anyway, so I stopped caring as much as I used to, but at least our official tools should probably follow what are nominally our policies. Note that Fedora's policy differs *significantly* from Red Hat's here, as Fedora's update workflow is entirely different from RHEL's. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/page.cgi?id=fields.html - the 'help' page you get by clicking on various bits of a bug page - is RHEL's policy, not Fedora's. There is a link to the Fedora policy at the top of it. Unfortunately, most of the links to the fields.html page jump into the middle of it with anchors, so no-one sees the link. The other problem with our policy is that it's somewhat of a hack job, because it involves taking the resolutions that were written for RHEL's update process and make sense in that context and applying them the Fedora update process, in which context they really don't make sense at all. So several of the choices are just arbitrary decisions I made when I was writing the smegging thing. This is of course one of the drawbacks of sharing a bug tracker with RHEL, but then the point is always made that the effort of having our own would outweigh the benefits. Still, even in RHEL's policy, CURRENTRELEASE is clearly wrong for a straightforward 'this was a bug that got fixed and we pushed an update' case, so I don't know why people are suddenly plumping for it, other than that it somehow 'sounds right'. Unless it's a bugfix that is pushed to multiple releases and the one your after isn't the one that made it stable first at which point errata IMO makes slightly more sense. After all in our case CURRENTRELEASE changes roughly every 6 months so it becomes a moving target. In RHEL CR makes more sense because it would be the current dot release in the X cycle, where X is 4/5/6/7 etc. Peter -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: bodhi 0.9.3 deployed to production
On Thu, 2012-11-15 at 06:31 +, Peter Robinson wrote: Still, even in RHEL's policy, CURRENTRELEASE is clearly wrong for a straightforward 'this was a bug that got fixed and we pushed an update' case, so I don't know why people are suddenly plumping for it, other than that it somehow 'sounds right'. Unless it's a bugfix that is pushed to multiple releases and the one your after isn't the one that made it stable first at which point errata IMO makes slightly more sense. After all in our case CURRENTRELEASE changes roughly every 6 months so it becomes a moving target. In RHEL CR makes more sense because it would be the current dot release in the X cycle, where X is 4/5/6/7 etc. CURRENTRELEASE is clearly only for niche cases by both the RHEL and Fedora definitions. RHEL: CURRENTRELEASE - The problem described has been fixed and only ever appeared in unsupported or unreleased products. Fedora: The resolution CURRENTRELEASE is to be used in the case where a bug is reported before a release is made, and subsequently discovered to be fixed in the final release. For instance, a bug is reported against Fedora 18 while it is still in the pre-release stages, and remains open when the release is made; however, when the final Fedora 18 is made, the reporter re-tests and discovers the bug was actually fixed. In this case, the CURRENTRELEASE resolution is used. Both of those make it pretty clear it's only to be used in specific, fairly unusual circumstances, not as the routine resolution for a bug filed through Bugzilla, accepted by the maintainer, and fixed in the normal course of events. (Though I think the name is a bit confusing if you're just trying to figure out what resolution to use based on the names alone). ERRATA is the 'correct' resolution for that case for both RHEL (post-release at least) and Fedora (post-Branched). -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
