Christopher Aillon wrote:
> On 04/21/2011 12:11 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> Actually, that doesn't work. It's one of the many things Bodhi doesn't
>> implement as specified. You have to edit the autokarma down to 1; only
>> then, Bodhi will let you push the update.
>
> No. Case in point, I just p
Christopher Aillon wrote:
> No. Case in point, I just pushed
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2011-5635 which has
> autokarma of 3, and only 1 karma point.
Oh, great that this has been fixed! It must have been fixed fairly recently.
Last time I tried, it didn't work. That was one
On 04/21/2011 12:11 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Adam Williamson wrote:
>> No, they always just require +1 from anyone (or an X day wait). This
>> happens to be equivalent to the lowest possible autokarma setting, but
>> that's just a coincidence, it doesn't *mean* anything. If you set
>> autokarma hi
On Thu, 2011-04-21 at 21:11 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Adam Williamson wrote:
> > No, they always just require +1 from anyone (or an X day wait). This
> > happens to be equivalent to the lowest possible autokarma setting, but
> > that's just a coincidence, it doesn't *mean* anything. If you set
>
On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 11:50:15 -0700, AW wrote:
> To reiterate this again (thanks, Babe!) we've never claimed the process
> would catch all breakage, or expected it to. The point is to catch as
> much as we can,
In my point of view, "as much as we can" is not what is being done so far
at Fedora.
Adam Williamson wrote:
> No, they always just require +1 from anyone (or an X day wait). This
> happens to be equivalent to the lowest possible autokarma setting, but
> that's just a coincidence, it doesn't *mean* anything. If you set
> autokarma higher, you can still push manually once you have +1
On Thu, 2011-04-21 at 12:17 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> And with all the testing requirements, major breakage slips through
> nevertheless, because we're missing testing instructions for nearly all
> updates.
To reiterate this again (thanks, Babe!) we've never claimed the process
would catch
On Wed, 2011-04-20 at 23:52 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Uh, that's the current policy for critical path packages, not for non-
> critical packages which require only the autokarma set by the maintainer
> (which can be as low as 1) to be reached.
No, they always just require +1 from anyone (or a
On Thu, 2011-04-21 at 19:05 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Axel Thimm wrote:
> > Unfortunately security updates are explicitly listed as to be handled
> > like critical path packages, so Adam is correct in the current context,
> > at least if the wiki page is not incorrect.
>
> I think you're misund
Axel Thimm wrote:
> Unfortunately security updates are explicitly listed as to be handled
> like critical path packages, so Adam is correct in the current context,
> at least if the wiki page is not incorrect.
I think you're misunderstanding the wiki page. The "including security
updates" phrase
On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 10:51:16 +0300
Axel Thimm wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-04-20 at 12:26 -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > The various update streams flow differently. For a normal day,
> > EPEL4/5/6 might have about 2-20 updates. It might be practical to
> > look at all these for a quick glance. f14 (upda
On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 10:42:04 +0300, AT wrote:
> I think when it becomes normal to circumvent the system then perhaps we
> need to rethink it and implement it in a sane way?
I wouldn't say "it becomes normal", but certainly there's a tendency
towards wanting updates be pushed into the stable repo
On Wed, 2011-04-20 at 12:26 -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> The various update streams flow differently. For a normal day,
> EPEL4/5/6 might have about 2-20 updates. It might be practical to look
> at all these for a quick glance. f14 (updates and testing) has around
> 30-50ish. f13 has around 5-20, an
On Wed, 2011-04-20 at 23:52 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Adam Williamson wrote:
> > 2 karma points *including* a proventester. That is:
> >
> > 1 proventester + 1 non-pt
> >
> > OR
> >
> > 2 proventester
> >
> > are sufficient. And yes, that is the current policy.
>
> Uh, that's the current po
Adam Williamson wrote:
> 2 karma points *including* a proventester. That is:
>
> 1 proventester + 1 non-pt
>
> OR
>
> 2 proventester
>
> are sufficient. And yes, that is the current policy.
Uh, that's the current policy for critical path packages, not for non-
critical packages which require o
Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 11:02:12 +0300
> Axel Thimm wrote:
>
>> E.g. the packages are marked as security updates and whatever the
>> cause, autoqa, missing karma, missing time, for some reason (partly
>> undisclosed as mentioned in my post yesterday) bodhi rejects them.
>> IMO i
On 04/20/2011 02:54 PM, Andre Robatino wrote:
> (Sorry for the excessive pruning, have to make gmane happy.)
Pardon me for pontificating, but your pruning was perfect.
Too many posts technically use interleaved quoting, but render it
useless by failing to trim the quoted material. The purpose o
Michael Schwendt gmail.com> writes:
> Anonymous users' votes don't add to the karma level.
> Their votes are just informative.
Not being in a non-CLA group != anonymous. Anyone can create a bodhi account and
log in, but unless they're in a non-CLA group, their fp.o email doesn't work and
they ge
On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 06:15:43 + (UTC), AR wrote:
> Andre Robatino fedoraproject.org> writes:
>
>
> > But if the user just wants to revoke their karma by changing their +/-1 to
> > a 0
> > (say they realize they're not able to test properly, which happened to me),
> > that's still not possib
On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 11:02:12 +0300
Axel Thimm wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-04-19 at 11:05 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > You've tried to select "stable" as the target already when
> > submitting the updates, and bodhi rejected that. With the CVEs
> > mentioned for Mediawiki, why didn't you choose "s
On Wed, 2011-04-20 at 11:30 +0300, Axel Thimm wrote:
> This mentions that critical packages and security updates need at least
> 2 karma points and a proventester, that's even more than setting karma
> on threshold 1 (???). Is that really the current policy for _security
> updates_?
2 karma point
On Tue, 2011-04-19 at 10:54 +0200, Sven Lankes wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 11:44:03AM +0300, Axel Thimm wrote:
>
> > This is probably part of the problem, I have been trying to push all 5
> > packages that are now in testing with bodhi rejecting due to autoqa.
> > Even packages that do have a
On Tue, 2011-04-19 at 11:05 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> You've tried to select "stable" as the target already when submitting
> the updates, and bodhi rejected that. With the CVEs mentioned for Mediawiki,
> why didn't you choose "security" instead of "stable"?
But I did. All packages are mark
On Tue, 2011-04-19 at 10:50 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Axel Thimm wrote:
> > Maybe the bodhi messages confused me. When I logon to a.f.o/updates it
> > prominently displays:
> >
> > Bodhi is now enforcing the Package Update Acceptance
> > Criteria across all Fedor
Andre Robatino fedoraproject.org> writes:
> But if the user just wants to revoke their karma by changing their +/-1 to a 0
> (say they realize they're not able to test properly, which happened to me),
> that's still not possible (see https://fedorahosted.org/bodhi/ticket/296 ). So
> it's necessa
Adam Williamson redhat.com> writes:
>
> On Tue, 2011-04-19 at 22:47 +, Ben Boeckel wrote:
>
> > What about to counteract "misplaced" karma? Example:
> >
> > - Bug exists in version X.Y
> > - Update filed for X.Y+1
> > - User reports that bug still exists with -1 karma
> > - Maintai
On Tue, 2011-04-19 at 22:47 +, Ben Boeckel wrote:
> What about to counteract "misplaced" karma? Example:
>
> - Bug exists in version X.Y
> - Update filed for X.Y+1
> - User reports that bug still exists with -1 karma
> - Maintainer replies with +1 karma that bug is not expected to be
Michael Schwendt wrote:
> We've always had the rule of thumb that packagers should not vote for
> their own updates. It is assumed that the packagers test their own updates
> and don't need to be explicit about their confidence in the update with
> karma points in bodhi.
>
> One goal of the updat
On 04/19/2011 01:33 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 10:40:22 -0700, AW wrote:
> We've always had the rule of thumb that packagers should not vote for
> their own updates. It is assumed that the packagers test their own updates
> and don't need to be explicit about their confidence
On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 10:40:22 -0700, AW wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-04-19 at 18:30 +0200, Thomas Spura wrote:
> > On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 08:37:25 -0700
> > Adam Williamson wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, 2011-04-19 at 11:05 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > >
> > > > Some packagers have been observed circumvent
On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 10:40:22 -0700
Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-04-19 at 18:30 +0200, Thomas Spura wrote:
> > On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 08:37:25 -0700
> > Adam Williamson wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, 2011-04-19 at 11:05 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > >
> > > > Some packagers have been observe
On Tue, 2011-04-19 at 18:30 +0200, Thomas Spura wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 08:37:25 -0700
> Adam Williamson wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 2011-04-19 at 11:05 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> >
> > > Some packagers have been observed circumventing the system by
> > > configuring a karma threshold of 1, s
On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 08:37:25 -0700
Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-04-19 at 11:05 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>
> > Some packagers have been observed circumventing the system by
> > configuring a karma threshold of 1, so their own +1 vote or the
> > first one from an arbitrary tester mak
On Tue, 2011-04-19 at 11:30 +0300, Axel Thimm wrote:
> On Sun, 2011-04-17 at 08:01 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > Axel Thimm wrote:
> > > Are you sure? I requested a push of the packages to stable (some were in
> > > testing for a week, others were security updates) and the message was
> > > that i
On Tue, 2011-04-19 at 11:05 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> Some packagers have been observed circumventing the system by configuring
> a karma threshold of 1, so their own +1 vote or the first one from an
> arbitrary
> tester make it possible to mark the update stable.
Not...really. The update
On Tue, 2011-04-19 at 11:05 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 11:30:44 +0300, AT wrote:
>
> > > AutoQA is still in testing phase, there is no enforcement yet.
> >
> > Maybe the bodhi messages confused me. When I logon to a.f.o/updates it
> > prominently displays:
> >
> >
On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 11:30:44 +0300, AT wrote:
> > AutoQA is still in testing phase, there is no enforcement yet.
>
> Maybe the bodhi messages confused me. When I logon to a.f.o/updates it
> prominently displays:
>
> Bodhi is now enforcing the Package Update Acceptance
>
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 11:44:03AM +0300, Axel Thimm wrote:
> This is probably part of the problem, I have been trying to push all 5
> packages that are now in testing with bodhi rejecting due to autoqa.
> Even packages that do have a positive autoqa tag on them like
> fail2ban-0.8.4-27.fc13.
Acc
Axel Thimm wrote:
> Maybe the bodhi messages confused me. When I logon to a.f.o/updates it
> prominently displays:
>
> Bodhi is now enforcing the Package Update Acceptance
> Criteria across all Fedora releases.
The criteria which are being enforced do not include A
On Sun, 2011-04-17 at 21:19 -0600, Tim Flink wrote:
> On 04/16/2011 01:52 PM, Axel Thimm wrote:
> Others have already commented on this, but I wanted to re-state that
> AutoQA is only in an informative mode right now. Any bodhi comments made
> by AutoQA have no karma and are not used for anything o
On Sun, 2011-04-17 at 08:01 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Axel Thimm wrote:
> > Are you sure? I requested a push of the packages to stable (some were in
> > testing for a week, others were security updates) and the message was
> > that it doesn't pass AutoQA, so it converted to request to push only
I've created a short blogpost about this issue:
http://kparal.wordpress.com/2011/04/18/autoqa-upgradepath-vs-updates-to-multiple-fedora-releases/
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
> On Mon, 2011-04-18 at 04:35 -0400, Kamil Paral wrote:
> > > I built two sets of security updates for f13/f14/f15 and autoqa
> > > rejected
> > > the f13/f14 packages. It looks like autoqa is waiting for the
> > packages
> > > to be properly pushed to f stable before green-lighting the
> > > match
On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 12:57:55 +0200, AB wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-04-18 at 04:35 -0400, Kamil Paral wrote:
> > > I built two sets of security updates for f13/f14/f15 and autoqa
> > > rejected
> > > the f13/f14 packages. It looks like autoqa is waiting for the
> > packages
> > > to be properly pushed to
On Mon, 2011-04-18 at 04:35 -0400, Kamil Paral wrote:
> > I built two sets of security updates for f13/f14/f15 and autoqa
> > rejected
> > the f13/f14 packages. It looks like autoqa is waiting for the
> packages
> > to be properly pushed to f stable before green-lighting the
> > matching package fo
> Hi,
>
> I built two sets of security updates for f13/f14/f15 and autoqa
> rejected
> the f13/f14 packages. It looks like autoqa is waiting for the packages
> to be properly pushed to f stable before green-lighting the
> matching package for f.
I suppose you're talking about upgradepath test. Y
On 04/16/2011 01:52 PM, Axel Thimm wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I built two sets of security updates for f13/f14/f15 and autoqa rejected
> the f13/f14 packages. It looks like autoqa is waiting for the packages
> to be properly pushed to f stable before green-lighting the
> matching package for f. Do I have to
On Sun, 17 Apr 2011 08:01:55 +0200, KK wrote:
> Axel Thimm wrote:
> > Are you sure? I requested a push of the packages to stable (some were in
> > testing for a week, others were security updates) and the message was
> > that it doesn't pass AutoQA, so it converted to request to push only to
> > t
Axel Thimm wrote:
> Are you sure? I requested a push of the packages to stable (some were in
> testing for a week, others were security updates) and the message was
> that it doesn't pass AutoQA, so it converted to request to push only to
> testing and indeed bodhi has marked the request as to test
On Sat, 2011-04-16 at 23:03 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Apr 2011 22:52:32 +0300, AT wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I built two sets of security updates for f13/f14/f15 and autoqa rejected
> > the f13/f14 packages. It looks like autoqa is waiting for the packages
> > to be properly pushe
On Sat, 16 Apr 2011 22:52:32 +0300, AT wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I built two sets of security updates for f13/f14/f15 and autoqa rejected
> the f13/f14 packages. It looks like autoqa is waiting for the packages
> to be properly pushed to f stable before green-lighting the
> matching package for f. Do I ha
Hi,
I built two sets of security updates for f13/f14/f15 and autoqa rejected
the f13/f14 packages. It looks like autoqa is waiting for the packages
to be properly pushed to f stable before green-lighting the
matching package for f. Do I have to wait until the packages for f15
are pushed to repush
52 matches
Mail list logo
