Re: Fedora 23 Final RC10 status is GO !

Kamil Paral wrote: > So we could ignore freeze just for packages not being on any install > medium. But then I'm not sure how much that is helpful and it might be > difficult to implement this in Bodhi. In the old manual process, I just had to ask rel-eng and they'd blanket-OK freeze overrides

Re: Fedora 23 Final RC10 status is GO !

> Very frequently in such cases the entire test matrix is not completely > retested. A lot of prior tests a carried over because they're known > (or strongly suspected) of not having been touched in any way by the > fix of one or two blocker bugs. > > If hundreds of packages get unfrozen and

Re: Fedora 23 Final RC10 status is GO !

On Mon, 2015-11-09 at 13:56 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Kamil Paral wrote: > > So we could ignore freeze just for packages not being on any install > > medium. But then I'm not sure how much that is helpful and it might be > > difficult to implement this in Bodhi. > > In the old manual process,

Re: Fedora 23 Final RC10 status is GO !

On Mon, 2015-11-09 at 17:11 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Mon, 2015-11-09 at 13:56 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: > > Kamil Paral wrote: > > > So we could ignore freeze just for packages not being on any install > > > medium. But then I'm not sure how much that is helpful and it might be > > >

Re: Fedora 23 Final RC10 status is GO !

On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 3:30 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > On Tue, 3 Nov 2015 09:23:49 +0100 > Petr Spacek wrote: > >> On 3.11.2015 01:56, Kevin Kofler wrote: >> > And with my proposed change to the release >> > policy (slip = unfreeze, sync all updates, refreeze),

Re: Updates (was Fedora 23 Final RC10 status is GO !)

Hi, I think the better approach is to allow more updates, as Kevin suggested, usually they fix more than they break. I also think shorter freezes with unfreeze on slip are better than the current approach of accumulated updates on release day. >From my point of view, the best approach is rolling

Re: Updates (was Fedora 23 Final RC10 status is GO !)

On Thu, 2015-11-05 at 02:16 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Michael Catanzaro wrote: > > 1) More time to catch regressions > > In theory. In practice, it mostly means more wasted time until a > regression > is FIXED, i.e., it is entirely counterproductive. Many regressions > are only > noticed

Re: Updates (was Fedora 23 Final RC10 status is GO !)

Michael Catanzaro wrote: > 1) More time to catch regressions In theory. In practice, it mostly means more wasted time until a regression is FIXED, i.e., it is entirely counterproductive. Many regressions are only noticed once the update goes stable, because that's when most users start trying

Re: Updates (was Fedora 23 Final RC10 status is GO !)

On Wed, 2015-11-04 at 20:03 -0600, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > On Thu, 2015-11-05 at 02:16 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: > > Michael Catanzaro wrote: > > > 1) More time to catch regressions > > > > In theory. In practice, it mostly means more wasted time until a > > regression > > is FIXED, i.e., it

Re: Fedora 23 Final RC10 status is GO !

On Tue, 3 Nov 2015 09:23:49 +0100 Petr Spacek wrote: > On 3.11.2015 01:56, Kevin Kofler wrote: > > And with my proposed change to the release > > policy (slip = unfreeze, sync all updates, refreeze), you could > > also use the time to get fixes/improvements in that would

Re: Updates (was Fedora 23 Final RC10 status is GO !)

On 3.11.2015 02:13, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Michael Catanzaro wrote: >> Yeah, that's the clear disadvantage. The service pack approach >> sidesteps that problem: everything still goes out, just not so soon, so >> everything spends plenty of time in testing. All the bugs still get >> fixed, just not

Re: Fedora 23 Final RC10 status is GO !

On 3.11.2015 01:56, Kevin Kofler wrote: > And with my proposed change to the release > policy (slip = unfreeze, sync all updates, refreeze), you could also use the > time to get fixes/improvements in that would have otherwise missed the > release. +1, this seems like a very reasonable proposal

Re: Fedora 23 Final RC10 status is GO !

On Tue, 2015-11-03 at 02:28 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: > (And to those people who want to do "service packs": please focus > your > "service pack" testing on the respins instead, and don't break the > existing > update system that works fine.) Yeah, there's really no reason service packs would

Re: Updates (was Fedora 23 Final RC10 status is GO !)

On Tue, 2015-11-03 at 02:13 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Michael Catanzaro wrote: > > Yeah, that's the clear disadvantage. The service pack approach > > sidesteps that problem: everything still goes out, just not so > > soon, so > > everything spends plenty of time in testing. All the bugs still

Re: Fedora 23 Final RC10 status is GO !

On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 9:07 AM, Jonathan Underwood < jonathan.underw...@gmail.com> wrote: > I think it is to some extent a question of what we are QA'ing for. As > I see it (and I may be in the minority), the QA process is a process > put in place to ensure the *install and live media* function >

Re: Fedora 23 Final RC10 status is GO !

On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 12:33 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > On Mon, 02 Nov 2015 01:28:07 + > Sérgio Basto wrote: > > > On Dom, 2015-11-01 at 17:53 +, Peter Robinson wrote: > > > On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 5:06 PM, Sérgio Basto > > > wrote: >

Re: Fedora 23 Final RC10 status is GO !

On Mon, 2 Nov 2015 12:45:36 -0500 Neal Gompa wrote: ...snip... > ​I'm hopeful we can get to this with Rawhide prior to the branching > point, but can our infrastructure handle it?​ I'm somewhat ignorant > of the capabilities of the Fedora infrastructure... Yes, as I noted

Re: Fedora 23 Final RC10 status is GO !

On Mon, 02 Nov 2015 01:28:07 + Sérgio Basto wrote: > On Dom, 2015-11-01 at 17:53 +, Peter Robinson wrote: > > On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 5:06 PM, Sérgio Basto > > wrote: > > > On Sex, 2015-10-30 at 17:47 +0100, Jan Kurik wrote: > > >> At the third

Re: Fedora 23 Final RC10 status is GO !

Am 02.11.2015 um 02:28 schrieb Sérgio Basto: On Dom, 2015-11-01 at 17:53 +, Peter Robinson wrote: On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 5:06 PM, Sérgio Basto wrote: On Sex, 2015-10-30 at 17:47 +0100, Jan Kurik wrote: At the third round of Fedora 23 Final Go/No-Go Meeting, that just

Re: Fedora 23 Final RC10 status is GO !

On Mon, 2015-11-02 at 10:52 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote: >  > > Perhaps full release validation could occur on composes every two > > weeks for branched releases? Or is that still too demanding? > > No idea. I don't want to speak for the QA folks.   So to put it simply and broadly: there's a

Re: Fedora 23 Final RC10 status is GO !

​As I found this discussion interesting and I believe FESCo is the right authority to help with this, I have opened a ticket ​ https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1495 for the FESCo meeting on Wednesday, to discuss it. Regards, Jan On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 10:10 AM, Reindl Harald

Re: Fedora 23 Final RC10 status is GO !

On 1 November 2015 at 22:14, Michael Catanzaro wrote: [snip] > On Sun, 2015-11-01 at 20:03 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: >> IMHO, we should have at most 1 week of strict freeze. If we decide >> that we >> have to slip anyway, then we should pull in ALL updates pending >> stable

Re: Fedora 23 Final RC10 status is GO !

2015-11-02 21:36 GMT-03:00 Kevin Fenzi : > On Mon, 2 Nov 2015 21:33:45 -0300 > Adrian Soliard wrote: > >> 've a question: >> >> Installing F23 RC10 is the same that wait to the final release? I'm >> planning to install it now, tomorrow I will not have

Re: Fedora 23 Final RC10 status is GO !

On Mon, 2015-11-02 at 20:27 -0500, Eric Griffith wrote: > Hey all, hate to be a downer but we might have a bug in the installer > > Just installed F23 Workstation via RC10. Encryption with btrfs across > two > drives. Intel graphics (Lenovo t450s if anyone has access to one). > Installed the

Re: Fedora 23 Final RC10 status is GO !

've a question: Installing F23 RC10 is the same that wait to the final release? I'm planning to install it now, tomorrow I will not have time to download and install it. 2015-11-02 19:57 GMT-03:00 Adam Williamson : > On Mon, 2015-11-02 at 10:52 -0700, Kevin Fenzi

Re: Fedora 23 Final RC10 status is GO !

Michael Catanzaro wrote: > My recommendation is the opposite of what Kevin would say, though. I'd > like to see a third party responsible for giving final approval on all > updates, charged with reducing the size of the updates pipe dramatically. > Maintainers should not have final say on updates

Re: Updates (was Fedora 23 Final RC10 status is GO !)

Michael Catanzaro wrote: > Yeah, that's the clear disadvantage. The service pack approach > sidesteps that problem: everything still goes out, just not so soon, so > everything spends plenty of time in testing. All the bugs still get > fixed, just not as fast. And that's "better" HOW? > (This

Re: Fedora 23 Final RC10 status is GO !

Hey all, hate to be a downer but we might have a bug in the installer Just installed F23 Workstation via RC10. Encryption with btrfs across two drives. Intel graphics (Lenovo t450s if anyone has access to one). Installed the system, rebooted into system. I get met with a black screen and the text

Re: Fedora 23 Final RC10 status is GO !

I think official respins are a good idea, indeed. But: Kevin Fenzi wrote: > So, in order to do what you are wanting we need (at least) 3 things: > > 1) releng has to make every daily compose a full compose of all > deliverables. We have actually been working toward this, and perhaps [snip] > 2)

Re: Fedora 23 Final RC10 status is GO !

On Mon, 2 Nov 2015 21:33:45 -0300 Adrian Soliard wrote: > 've a question: > > Installing F23 RC10 is the same that wait to the final release? I'm > planning to install it now, tomorrow I will not have time to download > and install it. yes, rc10 was the exact

Re: Fedora 23 Final RC10 status is GO !

On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 5:06 PM, Sérgio Basto wrote: > On Sex, 2015-10-30 at 17:47 +0100, Jan Kurik wrote: >> At the third round of Fedora 23 Final Go/No-Go Meeting, that just >> ends, has been Fedora 23 Final-RC10 declared as GOLD. >> GA of this release is planed on Tuesday

Re: Fedora 23 Final RC10 status is GO !

Peter Robinson wrote: > The problem is we have to freeze sometime to ensure stability in the > installer platform, the live and other images which are static. If not > it's too much of a moving target to try and QA and ensure everything > works as expected. To freeze is a fairly standard procedure

Re: Fedora 23 Final RC10 status is GO !

On 01/11/15 12:06 PM, Sérgio Basto wrote: > On Sex, 2015-10-30 at 17:47 +0100, Jan Kurik wrote: >> At the third round of Fedora 23 Final Go/No-Go Meeting, that just >> ends, has been Fedora 23 Final-RC10 declared as GOLD. >> GA of this release is planed on Tuesday 2015-Nov-03. >> > Today we got

Re: Fedora 23 Final RC10 status is GO !

On Sex, 2015-10-30 at 17:47 +0100, Jan Kurik wrote: > At the third round of Fedora 23 Final Go/No-Go Meeting, that just > ends, has been Fedora 23 Final-RC10 declared as GOLD. > GA of this release is planed on Tuesday 2015-Nov-03. > Today we got 531 updates for F23 , IMO, you should include it on

Re: Fedora 23 Final RC10 status is GO !

On Sun, 2015-11-01 at 17:53 +, Peter Robinson wrote: > The problem is we have to freeze sometime to ensure stability in the > installer platform, the live and other images which are static. If > not > it's too much of a moving target to try and QA and ensure everything > works as expected. To

Re: Fedora 23 Final RC10 status is GO !

On 11/01/2015 09:06 AM, Sérgio Basto wrote: > Today we got 531 updates for F23 , IMO, you should include it on Fedora > 23 Final before GA , doesn't make sense (to me) after download an ISO > have 1/2 Giga of updates, but this happens since RedHad 9 at least . > IMO, testing team should respin

Re: Fedora 23 Final RC10 status is GO !

On Dom, 2015-11-01 at 17:53 +, Peter Robinson wrote: > On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 5:06 PM, Sérgio Basto wrote: > > On Sex, 2015-10-30 at 17:47 +0100, Jan Kurik wrote: > >> At the third round of Fedora 23 Final Go/No-Go Meeting, that just > >> ends, has been Fedora 23 Final-RC10

Re: Fedora 23 Final RC10 status is GO !

On Sun, 2015-11-01 at 20:03 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Peter Robinson wrote: > > The problem is we have to freeze sometime to ensure stability in > > the > > installer platform, the live and other images which are static. If > > not > > it's too much of a moving target to try and QA and ensure >

Re: Fedora 23 Final RC10 status is GO !

Am 01.11.2015 um 23:20 schrieb Michael Catanzaro: On Sun, 2015-11-01 at 17:53 +, Peter Robinson wrote: The problem is we have to freeze sometime to ensure stability in the installer platform, the live and other images which are static. If not it's too much of a moving target to try and QA

Re: Updates (was Fedora 23 Final RC10 status is GO !)

Am 02.11.2015 um 00:36 schrieb Michael Catanzaro: *who* if not the package maintainer which hopefully uses his own packages should have the final say? some group of people not understanding the issues really? The counterargument is that we keep seeing major version updates that violate our

Fedora 23 Final RC10 status is GO !

At the third round of Fedora 23 Final Go/No-Go Meeting, that just ends, has been Fedora 23 Final-RC10 declared as GOLD. GA of this release is planed on Tuesday 2015-Nov-03. Meeting details can be seen here: Minutes: