How should we protect setting official package branch links (take 2)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi, While fixing bug #365098 (allowing package uploaders to set official source package branch), we hit a regression with the importer bug #797088. I have a fix for the regression, but I'd like to confirm the requirements around that piece to make sure that it's the end of the story. Basically, the fix ignores the pocket argument to setBranch. If the user has archive permission to upload the source package, he's allowed to set the official branch. Now, that means that any uploader (who has permission through the archive permissions) would be able to set an official package branch in the release pocket on SUPPORTED or CURRENT series. They couldn't upload a package there though. Is that a problem? Some argued that setting the official package branch is the logicial equivalent of an upload. Since I think we are shying away from automatic builds, I'm not sure this argument stands. In which case, that's more a kind of meta-data gardening which might not be a problem. Also, if we'd want to restrict this, we would have to model a 'package-importer' role on the distribution since it seems that the package-importer should have that permission regardless of the states of pocket, because it does garden historical meta-data. Thanks for your opinion on this. - -- Francis J. Lacoste francis.laco...@canonical.com -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk35LwAACgkQM2AFUiyz+TfTewCgvGEitJ+4lcQwqRaWJaixDnrF L6EAoLd9JeuAGYeLm0QfGbx5paNaadqa =2MEU -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- ubuntu-distributed-devel mailing list ubuntu-distributed-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-distributed-devel
Removing ubuntu-branches and ubuntu-techboard celebrities
Hi, While trying to use a distribution object for the Ensemble Principia distribution, I've hit some rusty parts of the Launchpad code. We have two celebrities that are used for permission checking and I don't think they are needed (plus it limits the use of distributions outside of the Ubuntu case). They are: * Ubuntu Branches. Only members of that team can set official package branch link. * Ubuntu Techboard. Only members of that team can manage archive permissions. I'd like to remove both celebrities and make the distribution owner the team in charge for both of these things. In Ubuntu's case, the techboard team is the distribution owner. For official package branch, this change would affect James Westby as he's the only member of ubuntu branches that is not part of the technical board. Maybe what's needed is to fix https://bugs.launchpad.net/launchpad/+bug/365098 and allow anyone who can upload the package to set the official link. The question then becomes, do we need to fix that bug before proceeding (in other word, would there be unwanted fall-outs from restricting this to the current distribution owners.) Eagerly awaiting your comments. -- Francis J. Lacoste francis.laco...@canonical.com signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -- ubuntu-distributed-devel mailing list ubuntu-distributed-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-distributed-devel
Re: Summary from UDD meeting 2011-03-23
On March 23, 2011, Barry Warsaw wrote: > * The build-from-branch-into-primary LEP is awaiting assignment to an LP > squad for implementation. Martin and Francis are hopeful that it will be > scheduled and live by UDS-O. Actually, that doesn't look so rosy anymore. Initial reviews found that finishing subscriptions and derived distros will take longer than initially thought. And we also have push back from some stakeholders on making this item jump the queue. Today, it looks very unlikely that a Launchpad squad could be assigned to this and finish it before UDS-O :-/ -- Francis J. Lacoste francis.laco...@canonical.com signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -- ubuntu-distributed-devel mailing list ubuntu-distributed-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-distributed-devel
Re: UDD survey results
On November 18, 2010, John Arbash Meinel wrote: > On 11/18/2010 12:04 PM, Francis J. Lacoste wrote: > > On November 18, 2010, Martin Pool wrote: > >> Net promoter score: 22 would recommend overall "Ubuntu development > >> using Bazaar" at least fairly strongly (net promoter score 7..10); 6 > >> would recommend avoiding it (0..3). However, 50 people skipped this > >> question, perhaps suggesting they have mixed feelings, or the question > >> was poorly stated (eg they don't see it as a thing they recommend to > >> others.) > > > > Sorry to bring bad news, but net promoter is actually % of 9-10 minus % > > of 0-6. In this case, we have a NP of -35. > > I'm not sure how you are counting, but I get 12 9-10s vs 13 0-6s, which > is, indeed, negative. > > However, there is another 9 8s, which would skew it up a lot. > > Anyway, I don't know the net promoter stuff. I certainly don't see how > you get 1-in-35 being "-35". Doh, My mistake, you are right. I completely missed the 9 people who gave it a 10. So indeed, the net promoter score is (12/46)-(13/46) = -0.02 which is a lot less negative. As to why the 9 8s don't skew anything, it's because 7 and 8 are considered passive adopters. People who like your software a lot, but are not enthuastic enough to really promote it. It's as if, psychologically there is a chasm between answering 8 or 9 to the question: 'On a scale of 0-10 how are you satisfied with X.' It seems there are wide differences in the experience of satisfaction between people who answer 8 or 9. (Or put differently: satisfaction rating doesn't operate on a linear scale.) Not sure how this is backed up by formal research though. Net promoter score has a lot of controversy around it. -- Francis J. Lacoste francis.laco...@canonical.com signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -- ubuntu-distributed-devel mailing list ubuntu-distributed-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-distributed-devel
Re: UDD survey results
On November 18, 2010, Martin Pool wrote: > Net promoter score: 22 would recommend overall "Ubuntu development > using Bazaar" at least fairly strongly (net promoter score 7..10); 6 > would recommend avoiding it (0..3). However, 50 people skipped this > question, perhaps suggesting they have mixed feelings, or the question > was poorly stated (eg they don't see it as a thing they recommend to > others.) Sorry to bring bad news, but net promoter is actually % of 9-10 minus % of 0-6. In this case, we have a NP of -35. -- Francis J. Lacoste francis.laco...@canonical.com signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -- ubuntu-distributed-devel mailing list ubuntu-distributed-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-distributed-devel
Growth of Ubuntu Distributed Development
Hi, I'm interested in getting an understanding whether the usage of UDD is growing or not. According to the stats I get from LP usage, we are seeing more and more package branches being created, but not necessarily many more people using it. Reviewing the last four months, specifically we went from ~600 to ~900 package branches (non-official) ~100 to ~150 registrants ~300 to ~500 source packages with branches So roughly a 50% increase across all dimensions. But the average number of people registering new branches within the last month is kind of stable at ~40 evenly split between Canonical and non- Canonical folks. My theory is that usage is increasing but among a core group of people. So a few more people try it out, but haven't persisted in making the switch. But the ~15-25 people how are really using it are using it more. Does that seem consistent with your views of the current usage? What is blocking more users from jumping on the UDD bandwagon? Let me know your thoughts. -- Francis J. Lacoste francis.laco...@canonical.com signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -- ubuntu-distributed-devel mailing list ubuntu-distributed-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-distributed-devel
Re: hottest100 (was Re: Bazaar focus for 2.1 and 2.2)
On January 26, 2010, Martin Pool wrote: > We're hacking a bit more on this script (in > http://code.launchpad.net/~canonical-bazaar/udd/hottest100) to make it > do things including > > * check both the package and upstream branch for freshness and existence > * cross check the package branch against Madison > * understand some of the branches that are special cases of various > kinds (metapackages, obsolete packages etc) > * more... > That's awesome! > and in passing we're fixing some misregistration. At the moment the > biggest problem we can't fix is that some Launchpad projects have > branches but no development focus (ie default branch) and we don't > have permission to change it. But we are collating that data and > presumably can ask a registry admin to change them. > I've asked Tom to approve canonical-bazaar membership to the Registry Administrators. That should allow you to fix a few of them yourselves. Let us know if there are still some that you can't fix. Cheers -- Francis J. Lacoste francis.laco...@canonical.com signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -- ubuntu-distributed-devel mailing list ubuntu-distributed-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-distributed-devel
Re: New overview page for the Bazaar importer
On January 7, 2010, James Westby wrote: > This of course is designing for failure, which is vital. However, it's > the scale of the issue that has taken some getting used to. It may be a > matter of magnitude, with a lot of API calls being made, so even a small > failure rate translates in to a lot of issues, but it still seems like a > lot. I have of course been filing bugs on LP about issues that I can > identify, and spent some time today provoking bad responses and digging > in to the reasons to file some more bugs. It seems that a lot of the > problem now is the appservers refusing to communicate though, and I'm > not sure there's a lot I can do on my end to debug that. We are currently experiencing an issue on the servers which causes timeout for non-obvious reason. (In some loaded conditions, getting the lag in the cluster is taking way too much time. Normally, this operation is done in a blink. We are working on a fix.) > > If you look at the list of the last 100 failures you will probably see > some of this with clusters of the same signature, usually pointing to > network communication in some manner. > Looking at the signature today, I only see the first one as network related: 2 packages failed to many times to retry with key launchpadlib.errors.HTTPError::main:get_versions:iterate_collection:get_collection_slice:get:_request Unless some of the root cause behind the other signatures is network related, but from the signature itself, it's not obvious. -- Francis J. Lacoste francis.laco...@canonical.com signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -- ubuntu-distributed-devel mailing list ubuntu-distributed-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-distributed-devel
Re: hottest100 (was Re: Bazaar focus for 2.1 and 2.2)
On January 15, 2010, Martin Pool wrote: > In case people are wondering how far this has come. > > When we started focussing on the hottest100 a month ago we had about > 90 of the hottest100 packages linked to products, and about 52 of them > had working branches. Now we have 94 of them linked to products, > which must be just about all that aren't special cases. Of those, 64 > now have working branches. That's pretty good, though I was hoping > we'd be a bit higher now, and I'm a bit surprised the second number > hasn't shifted since Christmas. From where do you see this? Is http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0Ag3S65cphSMHdG1VckNSRXI4OHBmVmxGaklGVW4tcWc&hl=en_GB still the place to track this? There I do see 94 linked to products, but only 60 branches linked. The spreadsheet doesn't have any bug link yet either. Is there another report, I should be watching? Given that the end goal for this project is to help with daily build but also UDD, it would be nice to also see if there is a package branch available for each of those. That doesn't change anything for this particular goal, but it makes the report more useful. At some point, we should probably make this report a part of Launchpad. > > The definition of 'working' here may be a bit loose; I'm working on a > script to scan them and report those which are stale. This will also > give a better way to record the specific problems with any branches > that should exempt them from this experiment, or the bugs we have to > fix to get them working. > > I plan that over the next few weeks we get branches registered for the > rest of them, and then be fixing some more of the import bugs. > -- Francis J. Lacoste francis.laco...@canonical.com signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -- ubuntu-distributed-devel mailing list ubuntu-distributed-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-distributed-devel
Re: Bazaar focus for 2.1 and 2.2
On December 16, 2009, John Arbash Meinel wrote: > Francis J. Lacoste wrote: > > On December 15, 2009, Martin Pool wrote: > >> I just had a good talk with James about what the Bazaar team could do > >> to help UDD move forward. We are making progress on some particular > >> bugs but the analysis feels a bit inchoate. So my theory is that we > >> will be more efficient if we pick a clearer focus to do first. > >> > >> We talked about: > >> > >> * vcs imports - very visible so could be good, but not a pressing > >> problem now > > > > Well, the linux kernel import is still not working. And that's with the > > recent fixes to bzr-git by Jelmer and the improved memory usage by John. > > So there are things to improve there. > > So I think the kernel is probably good for visibility, it certainly > isn't worthwhile from a "people are going to start using bzr to develop > the kernel" sort of thing. It's more than for visibility, having an import of the kernel is a prerequisite for doing udd and daily builds with it. -- Francis J. Lacoste francis.laco...@canonical.com signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -- ubuntu-distributed-devel mailing list ubuntu-distributed-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-distributed-devel
Re: Bazaar focus for 2.1 and 2.2
On December 15, 2009, Martin Pool wrote: > I just had a good talk with James about what the Bazaar team could do > to help UDD move forward. We are making progress on some particular > bugs but the analysis feels a bit inchoate. So my theory is that we > will be more efficient if we pick a clearer focus to do first. > > We talked about: > > * vcs imports - very visible so could be good, but not a pressing problem > now > Well, the linux kernel import is still not working. And that's with the recent fixes to bzr-git by Jelmer and the improved memory usage by John. So there are things to improve there. -- Francis J. Lacoste francis.laco...@canonical.com signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -- ubuntu-distributed-devel mailing list ubuntu-distributed-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-distributed-devel
Re: your thoughts wanted on bzr team UDD focus
On December 3, 2009, Martin Pool wrote: > If there are existing bugs relevant to udd, or you know of > appropriately concrete and self-contained things that can be filed as > bugs, then tagging them and/or mentioning them here would be helpful. > It would give us something to be getting on with. But I agree the > larger issues are too broad to make useful bugs now. (One could have > placeholder bugs like "work out what to do about X" but I doubt that > helps.) > Actually, given the workflow you guys seem to favour, I think it might be sense. Otherwise, how to do you track and make sure that somebody drives the requirements process on these larger issues? -- Francis J. Lacoste francis.laco...@canonical.com signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -- ubuntu-distributed-devel mailing list ubuntu-distributed-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-distributed-devel
