On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 11:14 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
>> Any one of those can invalidate the mathematical tests you say to run
>> as they require random pools, controls on populations polled, and
>> non-leading questions. People keep telling you this and you seem to
>>
This thread is now closed. We've received repeated complaints about the
redundancy of it.
No further posts to this thread will be allowed.
Thank You,
Seth Vidal
Fedora Hall Monitor
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Hall_Monitor_Policy
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://a
Bernd Stramm wrote:
> I would like to pick the packages that I'm adventurous with. Currently
> that's not very easy, either an adventurousness level is enabled in the
> repos or it isn't. That means my package manager gives me a flood of
> updates that I don't want. It would be nice to be able to
On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 11:10 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Jesse Keating wrote:
>> That's another problem with the poll. "Adventurous" means different
>> things to different people, so you can't assume that everybody is
>> responding to the same thing.
>
> "Adventurous" has quite an implication of br
On 05/04/2010 02:00 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
Wrong. There was data, on this very list, of users who desired more
conservative updates. There was also evidence on IRC of more users who
felt the same. I'd say there is the same quality of data
It's an interesting commentary on history to note t
Jesse Keating wrote:
> The solution to "shit went out and broke my stuff" isn't to make it
> easier to put shit out, it's to make it harder to put broken shit out
> in the first place.
Sure, that's a nice theory, but in practice, no matter how much testing you
require, there will ALWAYS be regres
Jesse Keating wrote:
> If/when karma is required for an update to go out, or a timeout in
> -testing, we will see an uptick in karma.
You keep claiming that. You have no evidence whatsoever for that, and it
doesn't seem plausible to me at all. Users only care about having the issue
fixed for the
Peter Jones wrote:
> Wait just a second - you're arguing that requiring testing doesn't work
> because nobody tested the KDE spin within 8 days. You might want to
> rethink this position.
Why? I don't see the contradiction. If nobody tests things, testing doesn't
and can't work.
Kevin Ko
On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 8:56 AM, Thomas Spura wrote:
> Am Montag, den 03.05.2010, 22:37 -0400 schrieb Orcan Ogetbil:
>> On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 10:26 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
>> > Once upon a time, Orcan Ogetbil said:
>> >> The statistic talks. It doesn't only talk. It yells. Ignoring this
>> >> test s
On 05/04/2010 02:14 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Jesse Keating wrote:
>> This involved doing another build of the package, which could
>> involve changes in the buildroot and anomalies in the build
>> process. Ask DaveJ some time about what happened to his kernel
>> builds when the build host did a cl
On Tue, 04 May 2010 20:04:45 +0200
Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Peter Jones wrote:
> > Wait just a second - you're arguing that requiring testing doesn't
> > work because nobody tested the KDE spin within 8 days. You might
> > want to rethink this position.
>
> Why? I don't see the contradiction. If no
On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 2:14 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Some risks are so low that they're basically negligible. If the 2 options
> are keeping an existing regression (which missed testing) in updates for a
> few more days or risking the off chance that there MAY be another regression
> with a proba
On 05/04/2010 01:40 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Peter Jones wrote:
>> I'm sorry you don't like it, but you've had ample occasion to come up with
>> a better idea, and you have roundly refused to make any attempt at doing
>> so.
>
> "I'm sorry you don't like my plate of Merde Provençale, but you've h
On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 9:50 AM, Jesse Keating wrote:
> If the breakage was more of a functional break and not a dep break,
> that's where automated testing comes in, and we grow the automated
> functional testing of updates so that if an update comes along we can
> detect the breakage and alert bo
Jesse Keating wrote:
> This involved doing another build of the package, which could involve
> changes in the buildroot and anomalies in the build process. Ask DaveJ
> some time about what happened to his kernel builds when the build host
> did a clock adjustment during the build. Shit happens, a
On 05/04/2010 06:04 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Peter Jones wrote:
Wait just a second - you're arguing that requiring testing doesn't work
because nobody tested the KDE spin within 8 days. You might want to
rethink this position.
Why? I don't see the contradiction. If nobody tests things,
Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> It's common sense that older releases should be receiving more testing,
> but here in reality it is the opposite. If I am wrong, please prove it.
Indeed, that's the fact we have to deal with, and IMHO the solution is to
push the same changes to all releases wherever p
On Tue, 2010-05-04 at 19:25 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Jesse Keating wrote:
> > Bad data is worse than no data.
>
> I disagree. As "bad" as the data is, it can't be worse than claiming users
> want, or worse, "need", conservative updates without any evidence whatsoever
> as has been done!
Wro
On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 11:09 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
>> They aren't voted in. The range voting method does not vote people in
>> or out.. it determines who the majority of people are most likely to
>> 'live' with. Basically it tries to remove the emotional political e
On Tue, 2010-05-04 at 09:07 -0800, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
> On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 8:45 AM, Jesse Keating wrote:
> > So I'd love to have multi-level policy, but in my opinion it should get
> > harder and harder to push an update as the release gets older, not
> > easier.
>
>
> In general I'm in agr
On Tue, 2010-05-04 at 12:04 -0500, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> Jesse Keating wrote:
> > So this is kind of funny. You'd rather see testing become/less/
> > rigorous as the age of a release grows, and you want the most rigorous
> > testing done in rawhide. That's quite the opposite of what many o
Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> Fedora security updates are regularly given no testing and are pushed
> directly to stable. Perhaps you should classify your updates with a
> severity of security.
That doesn't work because security updates require security team approval
(another silly policy which wa
On Tue, 2010-05-04 at 19:40 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> There are changes
> which don't need testing, for example if a patch was dropped because we
> thought it wasn't needed anymore, and it turns out the patch is still
> needed, readding the patch needs no testing whatsoever because the patch
Do what thou wilt
shall be the whole of the Law.
On 5/4/10, Thomas Janssen wrote:
> On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 3:24 PM, Rudolf Kastl wrote:
>> 2010/5/4 Thomas Spura :
>>> Am Montag, den 03.05.2010, 22:37 -0400 schrieb Orcan Ogetbil:
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 10:26 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
>
Peter Jones wrote:
> I'm sorry you don't like it, but you've had ample occasion to come up with
> a better idea, and you have roundly refused to make any attempt at doing
> so.
"I'm sorry you don't like my plate of Merde Provençale, but you've had ample
occation to come up with a better recipe fo
On Tue, 04 May 2010 19:10:38 +0200
Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Jesse Keating wrote:
> > That's another problem with the poll. "Adventurous" means different
> > things to different people, so you can't assume that everybody is
> > responding to the same thing.
>
> "Adventurous" has quite an implicatio
Jesse Keating wrote:
> Bad data is worse than no data.
I disagree. As "bad" as the data is, it can't be worse than claiming users
want, or worse, "need", conservative updates without any evidence whatsoever
as has been done!
In fact I can bring you non-statistical evidence for the opposite: The
Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> Any one of those can invalidate the mathematical tests you say to run
> as they require random pools, controls on populations polled, and
> non-leading questions. People keep telling you this and you seem to
> keep ignoring it.
I know the poll is far from perfect. But
Thomas Janssen wrote:
> Well, i don't want to kill your dreams, but to be a packager means nothing
> ;)
Yeah, even being a FESCo member is not of much use against a block of 8
other members and the whole Board all voting the same way. :-(
And in fact this observation is what started this whole t
Jesse Keating wrote:
> That's another problem with the poll. "Adventurous" means different
> things to different people, so you can't assume that everybody is
> responding to the same thing.
"Adventurous" has quite an implication of breakage. A milder term would
probably have given an even HIGHE
Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> They aren't voted in. The range voting method does not vote people in
> or out.. it determines who the majority of people are most likely to
> 'live' with. Basically it tries to remove the emotional political ends
> and find who the 'silent' majority want. How much it
Przemek Klosowski wrote:
> An average user wants a stable, working software distribution, with
> prompt patches and software enhancements. Since in general those are
> conflicting requirements, the Fedora community has to apply engineering
> judgement on what is the appropriate velocity of updates.
On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 8:45 AM, Jesse Keating wrote:
> So I'd love to have multi-level policy, but in my opinion it should get
> harder and harder to push an update as the release gets older, not
> easier.
In general I'm in agreement with this. But at the same time I'm
concerned that the policy
Jesse Keating wrote:
> So this is kind of funny. You'd rather see testing become/less/
> rigorous as the age of a release grows, and you want the most rigorous
> testing done in rawhide. That's quite the opposite of what many of us
> are trying to work toward, that is as the release moves from ra
On Tue, 2010-05-04 at 11:25 -0500, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> Fedora Rawhide/Fedora N+1
> Yes, these need rigorous testing and QA. Policies and tests are being
> set in place that will make a better and brighter Fedora future.
> However, it seems that the same release-level criteria are eroding
On 05/04/2010 05:55 PM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> On 05/04/2010 01:50 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
>>> You must all realize that the ratio of bureaucracy/process burden and
>>> quality of maintainers/packagers go hand in hand. The better the
>>> maintainers/packa
Jesse Keating wrote:
> Which vision is that? The one where we should produce a generally
> usable stable operating system every 6 months, one that users can
> confidently use throughout the life of that release? Making sure our
> updates given to users are better tested seems to be working toward
On 05/04/2010 01:50 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
"Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
You must all realize that the ratio of bureaucracy/process burden and
quality of maintainers/packagers go hand in hand. The better the
maintainers/packagers/components are less bureaucracy/process burden is
needed. Th
On Tue, 2010-05-04 at 10:00 -0500, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> The recent upswing in
> policies and requirements is clouding Fedora's vision.
Which vision is that? The one where we should produce a generally
usable stable operating system every 6 months, one that users can
confidently use thr
On Tue, 4 May 2010 11:51:11 +0100, Richard wrote:
> There are also technical problems: You can't fit much text in the
> Bodhi text box, and it can't be formatted except as a single
> paragraph, and when you do add a comment to help someone it doesn't
> seem to be seen by the original downvoter.
P
On 05/03/2010 12:51 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Jesse Keating wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 2010-05-03 at 14:01 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>>> [1] And I appreciate that I made a mistake with hal-storage in this
>>> cycle that caused inconvenience for people maintaining other spins, so
>>> I'm not going to
On Tue, 2010-05-04 at 17:05 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Of course the poll was just a sample. Many people who are for "adventurous"
> updates also didn't vote in that poll. E.g. I didn't. And I'm definitely for
> what that poll called "adventurous" updates, though I don't see the
> "adventure"
On 05/04/2010 09:50 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
>> You must all realize that the ratio of bureaucracy/process burden and
>> quality of maintainers/packagers go hand in hand. The better the
>> maintainers/packagers/components are less bureaucracy/process burden is
>> nee
On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 4:58 PM, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> Thomas Janssen wrote:
>> Maybe i'm wrong and nothing is decided, but why don't we do something
>> then and get the data we need to decide the*right* direction in the
>> first place?
>
> Because the "important" people of Fedora have deem
Peter Hutterer wrote:
> - I didn't vote in the fedoraforums poll because I trust FESCo to make
> sane decisions without me having to randomly trawl forums to make sure I
> can influence their decisions. So far that worked out for me. YMMV.
> (Also, I didn't really notice the poll until the matching
Kevin Kofler wrote:
> I am saying that SOME updates can be pushed with less or even no testing.
> This does NOT mean that testing should not be used in most cases. It just
> means that it should be the maintainer's discretion whether to use it or
> not. The maintainer knows best how to handle his/h
Thomas Janssen wrote:
> Maybe i'm wrong and nothing is decided, but why don't we do something
> then and get the data we need to decide the*right* direction in the
> first place?
Because the "important" people of Fedora have deemed users to be
sub-standard humans. Only contributors (ie packagers
On 05/03/2010 10:01 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-05-04 at 01:58 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>>> It was none of that. All it gave us was info we already had. Some users
>>> would like more adventurous stuff, while some users would not. We already
>>> had that information, the poll told
On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 3:24 PM, Rudolf Kastl wrote:
> 2010/5/4 Thomas Spura :
>> Am Montag, den 03.05.2010, 22:37 -0400 schrieb Orcan Ogetbil:
>>> On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 10:26 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
>>> > Once upon a time, Orcan Ogetbil said:
Sorry if i answer that one, i had to take one.
The ab
Jesse Keating wrote:
> In many cases these do apply. I participate in cases such as this
> nearly every day, and it's working. We're testing fixes, rejecting bad
> ones, and getting the right builds into stable. The system is working,
> but as we all know, no system is perfect. However perfect
"Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> You must all realize that the ratio of bureaucracy/process burden and
> quality of maintainers/packagers go hand in hand. The better the
> maintainers/packagers/components are less bureaucracy/process burden is
> needed. The worse it gets more bureaucracy/process bu
2010/5/4 Thomas Spura :
> Am Montag, den 03.05.2010, 22:37 -0400 schrieb Orcan Ogetbil:
>> On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 10:26 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
>> > Once upon a time, Orcan Ogetbil said:
>> >> The statistic talks. It doesn't only talk. It yells. Ignoring this
>> >> test statistic in favor of the lar
Am Montag, den 03.05.2010, 22:37 -0400 schrieb Orcan Ogetbil:
> On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 10:26 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
> > Once upon a time, Orcan Ogetbil said:
> >> The statistic talks. It doesn't only talk. It yells. Ignoring this
> >> test statistic in favor of the large pool of imaginary users, wh
On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 12:51, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> Secondly, a simple linear scale doesn't reflect the complexity of
> testing packages. I've had people downvote my packages because of FAQ
> issues or user error or long-standing bugs in some other package that
> we can't or don't want to f
On Mon, May 03, 2010 at 02:00:59PM -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-05-03 at 18:45 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > here will
> > ALWAYS be a need for a way to fasttrack regression fixes!
>
> The proposals I've seen include a way to fasttrack. That is you get the
> required karma betwee
On Tue, May 04, 2010 at 12:36:25AM -0400, Matt McCutchen wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-05-04 at 14:20 +1000, Peter Hutterer wrote:
> > I resent being called an imaginary user. Being imaginary would seriously
> > screw with my weekend plans.
>
> So tell us whether you take the stance on updates that is imp
On 05/04/2010 05:09 AM, Dave Airlie wrote:
> So it its none of these why do you want to fast track it into stable?
The fact nobody has reported a bug into Fedora's bugtracking system
doesn't mean a package is not bugged or doesn't suffer from defects.
The prototypical situations I am facing with
Bernd Stramm said the following on 05/03/2010 07:13 PM Pacific Time:
> On Mon, 3 May 2010 22:04:11 -0400
> Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
>
>> On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 8:22 PM, Bernd Stramm wrote:
>>> On Tue, 04 May 2010 01:58:34 +0200
>>> Kevin Kofler wrote:
>>>
>>>
The poll told us an approximate propo
On Tue, 2010-05-04 at 14:20 +1000, Peter Hutterer wrote:
> I resent being called an imaginary user. Being imaginary would seriously
> screw with my weekend plans.
So tell us whether you take the stance on updates that is imputed to the
so-called "imaginary users".
--
Matt
--
devel mailing list
On Mon, May 03, 2010 at 10:16:48PM -0400, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
> On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 10:01 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
> > On Tue, 2010-05-04 at 01:58 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> >> Jesse Keating wrote:
> >> The poll told us an approximate proportion, which is so far from 50-50
> >> (72.13%) that
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 9:13 PM, Mail Llists wrote:
> On 05/03/2010 10:01 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
>
>>
>> Of course the sample is biased. It's a sample of people who frequent
>> the forums, that's a self selecting group of people, by no means a
>> worthwhile representation of the Fedora user base
On 05/03/2010 10:01 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
>
> Of course the sample is biased. It's a sample of people who frequent
> the forums, that's a self selecting group of people, by no means a
> worthwhile representation of the Fedora user base as a whole.
FYI - Not true - I joined the forum for t
On Tue, 2010-05-04 at 05:01 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 05/03/2010 11:12 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
> > On Mon, 2010-05-03 at 18:51 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> >>
> >> Except karma requirements (which were in force due to the critical path
> >> process) did NOT prevent this particular regressi
On Tue, 2010-05-04 at 05:01 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>
> You are presuming a bug
> * affects many people
> * is reproducable by many people
> * has "user visible" impacts
> * users are volunteering to provide feedback
>
> These presumptions are all wrong and do not apply.
In many cases thes
On 05/03/2010 11:12 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-05-03 at 18:51 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>>
>> Except karma requirements (which were in force due to the critical path
>> process) did NOT prevent this particular regression, nor would a "1 week
>> minimum in testing" requirement have pre
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 10:45 PM, Dave Airlie wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-05-03 at 22:37 -0400, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
>> On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 10:26 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
>> > Once upon a time, Orcan Ogetbil said:
>> >> The statistic talks. It doesn't only talk. It yells. Ignoring this
>> >> test statist
On Mon, 2010-05-03 at 22:37 -0400, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
> On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 10:26 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
> > Once upon a time, Orcan Ogetbil said:
> >> The statistic talks. It doesn't only talk. It yells. Ignoring this
> >> test statistic in favor of the large pool of imaginary users, who
> >>
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 10:26 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Orcan Ogetbil said:
>> The statistic talks. It doesn't only talk. It yells. Ignoring this
>> test statistic in favor of the large pool of imaginary users, who
>> supposedly think in the complete other direction, is not only
>>
Once upon a time, Orcan Ogetbil said:
> The statistic talks. It doesn't only talk. It yells. Ignoring this
> test statistic in favor of the large pool of imaginary users, who
> supposedly think in the complete other direction, is not only
> non-scientific, stupid., but also self-conflicting.
You
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 5:58 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Jesse Keating wrote:
>> Please stop banding about the forum poll as if it were some sort of
>> scientific measure with meaningful results one could use as a basis for
>> decision making.
>
> It's the best data we have.
And the statisticians I
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 10:01 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-05-04 at 01:58 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> Jesse Keating wrote:
>> The poll told us an approximate proportion, which is so far from 50-50
>> (72.13%) that we clearly have a statistically significant majority, also
>> considering
On Mon, 3 May 2010 22:04:11 -0400
Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
> On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 8:22 PM, Bernd Stramm wrote:
> > On Tue, 04 May 2010 01:58:34 +0200
> > Kevin Kofler wrote:
> >
> >
> >> The poll told us an approximate proportion, which is so far from
> >> 50-50 (72.13%) that we clearly have a stat
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 8:22 PM, Bernd Stramm wrote:
> On Tue, 04 May 2010 01:58:34 +0200
> Kevin Kofler wrote:
>
>
>> The poll told us an approximate proportion, which is so far from
>> 50-50 (72.13%) that we clearly have a statistically significant
>> majority, also considering the sample size N=1
On Tue, 2010-05-04 at 01:58 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Jesse Keating wrote:
> > Please stop banding about the forum poll as if it were some sort of
> > scientific measure with meaningful results one could use as a basis for
> > decision making.
>
> It's the best data we have.
Bad data is worse
On Tue, 04 May 2010 01:58:34 +0200
Kevin Kofler wrote:
> The poll told us an approximate proportion, which is so far from
> 50-50 (72.13%) that we clearly have a statistically significant
> majority, also considering the sample size N=183.
I'm not sure what the poll was exactly, but a sample s
On 05/03/2010 10:30 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
> The point here is that Kevin isn't perfect. As such, he can make
> mistakes, just like all of us. By asking for a couple karma nods from
> different people, we increase the chance of catching some of those
> mistakes. Since the delay exists anyway,
Jesse Keating wrote:
> Please stop banding about the forum poll as if it were some sort of
> scientific measure with meaningful results one could use as a basis for
> decision making.
It's the best data we have.
> It was none of that. All it gave us was info we already had. Some users
> would l
On Tue, May 04, 2010 at 00:01:24 +0200,
Kevin Kofler wrote:
>
> Why are you telling all this stuff to me? I'm ALREADY complaining about our
> processes being undemocratic. The points you make are very real. But I don't
> agree with you that the solution has to be some formal framework. If our
2010/5/4 Stephen John Smoogen :
> On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 4:01 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
>>> As I have pointed out in both public and private emails to you
>> [snip]
>>
>> Why are you telling all this stuff to me? I'm ALREADY complaining about our
>> processes being und
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 4:01 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
>> As I have pointed out in both public and private emails to you
> [snip]
>
> Why are you telling all this stuff to me? I'm ALREADY complaining about our
> processes being undemocratic. The points you make are very
On Tue, 2010-05-04 at 00:01 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> In some cases, the people to represent are even our users, e.g. they asked
> for "adventurous" updates, so why does the Board decide on a "vision" for
> conservative updates? Are people that set on their personal preference that
> they can
On Tue, 2010-05-04 at 01:27 +0300, shmuel siegel wrote:
> At the risk of putting words into Kevin's mouth, I think that you just
> made his point. I'd be very surprised if Kevin couldn't get x number of
> people to say yes to a fix that he considered urgent. This might confirm
> that the fix had
On 5/4/2010 12:57 AM, Jesse Keating wrote:
> Testing takes time, lets give up? Seriously? Pushes happen about once
> every 24 hours, do you really say it'll take longer than 24 hours to get
> a couple people to test the issue and confirm that your fix does indeed
> fix the issue, and doesn't seem
Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> As I have pointed out in both public and private emails to you
[snip]
Why are you telling all this stuff to me? I'm ALREADY complaining about our
processes being undemocratic. The points you make are very real. But I don't
agree with you that the solution has to be
On Mon, 2010-05-03 at 23:49 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Jesse Keating wrote:
> > The proposals I've seen include a way to fasttrack. That is you get the
> > required karma between the time the update was submitted to bodhi, and
> > the time a bodhi admin starts the push. In such cases your updat
Jesse Keating wrote:
> The proposals I've seen include a way to fasttrack. That is you get the
> required karma between the time the update was submitted to bodhi, and
> the time a bodhi admin starts the push. In such cases your update would
> go directly to stable. How is that not a fast track?
On Mon, 2010-05-03 at 18:51 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>
> Except karma requirements (which were in force due to the critical path
> process) did NOT prevent this particular regression, nor would a "1 week
> minimum in testing" requirement have prevented it (the update spent 8 days
> in testing
On Mon, 2010-05-03 at 18:45 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> here will
> ALWAYS be a need for a way to fasttrack regression fixes!
The proposals I've seen include a way to fasttrack. That is you get the
required karma between the time the update was submitted to bodhi, and
the time a bodhi admin st
On Sun, May 2, 2010 at 6:20 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
".
> - The prevailing opinion of the electorate of Fedora contributors keeps
> getting ignored. Feedback on the Fedora devel mailing list is never seen as
> in any way binding, it's often dismissed as noise or "trolling". The
> predomin
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 2:02 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>> - I read this list every day, and am very mindful of feedback from
>> developers. Any communication media is good, IMHO. My mailbox is also
>> always open. I think many become discouraged with the mailing list
>> the
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 10:00 AM, Chris Adams wrote:
> Thanks a lot Kevin; you showed a lot of class trying to stir up the same
> arguments that you stirred up before. Maybe the reason you lost votes
> is that a lot of people just don't agree with you; pouting about that
> won't help anything.
Th
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 3:07 AM, Alex Hudson wrote:
> I think it's a bit disingenuous to talk about prevailing opinion of the
> mailing list otherwise; to me a lot of the discussion looks an awful lot
> like a vocal minority,
Be careful about meeting subjective opinion with differing subjective op
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 8:08 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Mon, May 03, 2010 at 07:34:28PM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>
>> Why should we not call the GNOME spin, and the GNOME desktop in general, by
>> its name? GNOME is just A desktop, it's NOT "the" desktop.
>
> It's the desktop with the most d
On Mon, 2010-05-03 at 19:34 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Alex Hudson wrote:
> > I think it's a bit disingenuous to talk about prevailing opinion of the
> > mailing list otherwise; to me a lot of the discussion looks an awful lot
> > like a vocal minority
>
> I think it's quite cheap to write off t
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 8:00 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Kevin Kofler said:
>> Matthew Garrett wrote:
>
>
> Can we PLEASE not rehash all of this again?
Generally agreed.
> Maybe the reason you lost votes is that a lot of people just don't agree with
>you
Doesn't automatically m
On Mon, May 03, 2010 at 07:34:28PM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Why should we not call the GNOME spin, and the GNOME desktop in general, by
> its name? GNOME is just A desktop, it's NOT "the" desktop.
It's the desktop with the most development and integration work
performed in the distribution,
Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> - I don't distrust our maintainers. I very much value the work they do
> and without them we would have no Fedora. However, I also want to
> help them do the right thing for our users (who I also would like to
> see happy). I'm open to ideas on how to reduce 'red tape' fo
Once upon a time, Kevin Kofler said:
> Matthew Garrett wrote:
Can we PLEASE not rehash all of this again?
Thanks a lot Kevin; you showed a lot of class trying to stir up the same
arguments that you stirred up before. Maybe the reason you lost votes
is that a lot of people just don't agree with
Alex Hudson wrote:
> I think it's a bit disingenuous to talk about prevailing opinion of the
> mailing list otherwise; to me a lot of the discussion looks an awful lot
> like a vocal minority
I think it's quite cheap to write off the mailing list consensus as a "vocal
minority" with no evidence f
On Mon, May 03, 2010 at 02:20:51AM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
[...]
Kevin, I was rooting for you, and I particularly agree with you on the
issues of trusting maintainers and "devolving" power down to packaging
groups and SIGs. It was very disheartening also to see so many votes
going N-to-1.
Ric
1 - 100 of 122 matches
Mail list logo
