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
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, 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
Re: bodhi 0.9.3 deployed to production
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 6:15 AM, Adam Williamson 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 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
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
bodhi 0.9.3 deployed to production
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 Major user-facing changes in 0.9.3 -- - Bodhi will no longer alter the bug status if it is already VERIFIED or ON_QA - Fixed grid pagination (Mathieu Bridon) - Allow CLI users to enable automatic bug closing (Ralph Bean) - Automatically submit updates that are edited with new builds back to testing - Fixed Message-ID and X-Bodhi message headers (Till Maas) - Publish messages upon buildroot override tag/untag (Ralph Bean) - Don't trigger fedmsg notifications for internal bodhi or autoqa comments Full list of changes Luke Macken (25): Sync up our specfic with rawhides Fix an out of order changelog entry Suppress tgmochikit, and include it in the one place that we actually need it. Revert "Suppress tgmochikit, and include it in the one place that we actually need it." The tooltip.css was merged into our main stylesheet Require python-tgcaptcha2 Move the deployment message to master.kid, and tweak the style Don't send messages for internal bodhi comments Don't send messages for autoqa comments Fix the deployment status in the genshi template as well Avoid calling fedmsg from our MashTask until it is thread-safe. Don't add email headers for buildroot overrides Reference the update in the Comment.__json__ for fedmsg Revert "Reference the update in the Comment.__json__ for fedmsg" Cast our SQLObject results set to a list Revert "Avoid calling fedmsg from our MashTask until it is thread-safe." import fedmsg helps Require fedmsg 0.3.3+ for thread safety Add the update_title to our Comment.__json__ Fix fedmsg requirement Submit updates that are edited with new builds back to testing (#678) Fix a typo Handle cookielib.LoadErrors when initializing python-bugzilla. Don't change the bug status if it is already VERIFIED (#698) Bump version to 0.9.3 Mathieu Bridon (8): Improved message after new Buildroot override Prettify an error message Fix unit test Use the new TurboGears pagination parameter The Fedora infrastructure moved to cgit Make the 'Administration' button more useful Only suggest candidate builds Remove unused parameter Patrick Uiterwijk (1): Add different headers for different deployment types Ralph Bean (8): s/send_message/publish/ Some more fedmsg notifications. Publish messages on buildroot_override tag and untag. Merging. Agent information for fedmsg. Allow CLI users to enable automatic bug closing. Removed tools/fedmsg-watch.py (it was from *way* back in the day). Change fedmsg topic from done to complete (for consistency). fedmsg config values required for zeromq3. Remi Collet (1): Fix config for Apache >= 2.4 Till Maas (3): Use a string for X-Bodhi-Update-Builds mail header Fix generated message IDs model: fix closing of bugs using bz._update_bug ___ devel-announce mailing list devel-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel-announce -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
