Re: [Fedora Update] [CRITPATH] [comment] mesa-10.1-6.20140305.fc20, pure-0.58-3.fc20, python-llvmpy-0.12.4-1.fc20, pocl-0.9-4.fc20.1, OpenGTL-0.9.18-9.fc20, gedit-code-assistance-0.2.0-5.fc20, gambas3-3.5.3-1.fc20.1, dragonegg-3.4-0.3.rc0.fc20, llvm-3.4-6.fc20
On Sat, 2014-04-19 at 15:33 +0000, updates@fedoraproject.org wrote:
The following comment has been added to the mesa-10.1-6.20140305.fc20,pure-0.58-3.fc20,python-llvmpy-0.12.4-1.fc20,pocl-0.9-4.fc20.1,OpenGTL-0.9.18-9.fc20,gedit-code-assistance-0.2.0-5.fc20,gambas3-3.5.3-1.fc20.1,dragonegg-3.4-0.3.rc0.fc20,llvm-3.4-6.fc20 update:
bodhi - 2014-04-19 15:33:49 (karma: 0) This update has been submitted for stable by ignatenkobrain.
Can you please not just decide to push things to updates that I'd already promised fesco I'd leave in testing for a long soak period? That be great.
- ajax
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 09:50:26AM -0400, Adam Jackson wrote:
bodhi - 2014-04-19 15:33:49 (karma: 0) This update has been submitted for stable by ignatenkobrain.
Can you please not just decide to push things to updates that I'd already promised fesco I'd leave in testing for a long soak period? That be great.
Ouch. Yeah. How did that happen? How can we make it not happen in the future?
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 4:30 PM, Matthew Miller mattdm@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 09:50:26AM -0400, Adam Jackson wrote:
bodhi - 2014-04-19 15:33:49 (karma: 0) This update has been submitted for stable by ignatenkobrain.
Can you please not just decide to push things to updates that I'd already promised fesco I'd leave in testing for a long soak period? That be great.
Ouch. Yeah. How did that happen? How can we make it not happen in the future?
Well bodhi could simply not allow anyone other then the submitter to press the push button. Other then that ... better communication.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 04/21/2014 10:33 AM, drago01 wrote:
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 4:30 PM, Matthew Miller mattdm@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 09:50:26AM -0400, Adam Jackson wrote:
bodhi - 2014-04-19 15:33:49 (karma: 0) This update has been submitted for stable by ignatenkobrain.
Can you please not just decide to push things to updates that I'd already promised fesco I'd leave in testing for a long soak period? That be great.
Ouch. Yeah. How did that happen? How can we make it not happen in the future?
Well bodhi could simply not allow anyone other then the submitter to press the push button. Other then that ... better communication.
I think better communication is really the only appropriate option. There are certainly times when a provenpackager might need to force an update into stable when the original reporter is unavailable (for example a dependency for a security update).
On Mon, 2014-04-21 at 16:33 +0200, drago01 wrote:
Ouch. Yeah. How did that happen? How can we make it not happen in
the
future?
Well bodhi could simply not allow anyone other then the submitter to press the push button. Other then that ... better communication.
Two people -- the submitter and an approver -- should be required to press the push button. The approver should push eagerly most of the time, but squint and ask questions when he sees something questionable (like the recent dracut update).
----- Original Message -----
On Mon, 2014-04-21 at 16:33 +0200, drago01 wrote:
Ouch. Yeah. How did that happen? How can we make it not happen in
the
future?
Well bodhi could simply not allow anyone other then the submitter to press the push button. Other then that ... better communication.
Two people -- the submitter and an approver -- should be required to press the push button. The approver should push eagerly most of the time, but squint and ask questions when he sees something questionable (like the recent dracut update).
We would never release any update this way any more.
But maybe for new Bodhi, there could be possibility to override default limits to push bits to stable (extend the default values) when maintainer wishes (for some reason aka give it more testing and not to forget or when more maintainers has the right to push stable button) + comment that explains it. As it's always better when communication happens in the place you're about to use it.
On the other hand - it would lead to much more complex policies and could lead to even worst situations...
Jaroslav
-- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
On Mon, 2014-04-21 at 10:30 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 09:50:26AM -0400, Adam Jackson wrote:
bodhi - 2014-04-19 15:33:49 (karma: 0) This update has been submitted for stable by ignatenkobrain.
Can you please not just decide to push things to updates that I'd already promised fesco I'd leave in testing for a long soak period? That be great.
Ouch. Yeah. How did that happen? How can we make it not happen in the future?
Probably because:
- the part where I promised this happened only in the fesco ticket, not on this list, so probably none of the other mesa maintainers noticed - I didn't go out of my way to mention that either on this list or in the errata - The stable request happened on a (holiday!) weekend so I wasn't reading email to notice and cancel it
I don't see the need for a process change, really, I think calling it out on the list is chastisement enough, and I'm not entirely innocent. But yeah, not quite how I wanted my Monday to start.
- ajax
On Seg, 2014-04-21 at 10:56 -0400, Adam Jackson wrote:
On Mon, 2014-04-21 at 10:30 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 09:50:26AM -0400, Adam Jackson wrote:
bodhi - 2014-04-19 15:33:49 (karma: 0) This update has been submitted for stable by ignatenkobrain.
but ignatenkobrain have commiter permissions in every package ? or at least in one of them ?
Can you please not just decide to push things to updates that I'd already promised fesco I'd leave in testing for a long soak period? That be great.
Ouch. Yeah. How did that happen? How can we make it not happen in the future?
Probably because:
- the part where I promised this happened only in the fesco ticket, not
on this list, so probably none of the other mesa maintainers noticed
- I didn't go out of my way to mention that either on this list or in
the errata
- The stable request happened on a (holiday!) weekend so I wasn't
reading email to notice and cancel it
I don't see the need for a process change, really, I think calling it out on the list is chastisement enough, and I'm not entirely innocent. But yeah, not quite how I wanted my Monday to start.
- ajax
Oops, really sorry ;( On Apr 21, 2014 5:50 PM, "Adam Jackson" ajax@redhat.com wrote:
On Sat, 2014-04-19 at 15:33 +0000, updates@fedoraproject.org wrote:
The following comment has been added to the
mesa-10.1-6.20140305.fc20,pure-0.58-3.fc20,python-llvmpy-0.12.4-1.fc20,pocl-0.9-4.fc20.1,OpenGTL-0.9.18-9.fc20,gedit-code-assistance-0.2.0-5.fc20,gambas3-3.5.3-1.fc20.1,dragonegg-3.4-0.3.rc0.fc20,llvm-3.4-6.fc20 update:
bodhi - 2014-04-19 15:33:49 (karma: 0) This update has been submitted for stable by ignatenkobrain.
Can you please not just decide to push things to updates that I'd already promised fesco I'd leave in testing for a long soak period? That be great.
- ajax
How we can fix my stupid error? On Apr 21, 2014 5:50 PM, "Adam Jackson" ajax@redhat.com wrote:
On Sat, 2014-04-19 at 15:33 +0000, updates@fedoraproject.org wrote:
The following comment has been added to the
mesa-10.1-6.20140305.fc20,pure-0.58-3.fc20,python-llvmpy-0.12.4-1.fc20,pocl-0.9-4.fc20.1,OpenGTL-0.9.18-9.fc20,gedit-code-assistance-0.2.0-5.fc20,gambas3-3.5.3-1.fc20.1,dragonegg-3.4-0.3.rc0.fc20,llvm-3.4-6.fc20 update:
bodhi - 2014-04-19 15:33:49 (karma: 0) This update has been submitted for stable by ignatenkobrain.
Can you please not just decide to push things to updates that I'd already promised fesco I'd leave in testing for a long soak period? That be great.
- ajax
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 7:45 PM, Igor Gnatenko i.gnatenko.brain@gmail.com wrote:
How we can fix my stupid error?
"Fixing" it does more harm then good. Just leave it as it and hope the testing it got was enough. If not people will hopefully file bugs anyway.
On Mon, 2014-04-21 at 19:52 +0200, drago01 wrote:
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 7:45 PM, Igor Gnatenko i.gnatenko.brain@gmail.com wrote:
How we can fix my stupid error?
"Fixing" it does more harm then good. Just leave it as it and hope the testing it got was enough. If not people will hopefully file bugs anyway.
Yeah, I suspect we'll be fine, just a process mishap. I'll try to be better about communication in future rebases like this.
- ajax
On Seg, 2014-04-21 at 14:22 -0400, Adam Jackson wrote:
On Mon, 2014-04-21 at 19:52 +0200, drago01 wrote:
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 7:45 PM, Igor Gnatenko i.gnatenko.brain@gmail.com wrote:
How we can fix my stupid error?
"Fixing" it does more harm then good. Just leave it as it and hope the testing it got was enough. If not people will hopefully file bugs anyway.
Yeah, I suspect we'll be fine, just a process mishap. I'll try to be better about communication in future rebases like this.
Hi, I see x11-xorg-server 1.16 (1.15.9) in rawhide , aren't you planing update Fedora 20 with x11-xorg-server 1.15 ? what is the plan ?
Thanks,
On Fri, 2014-05-02 at 17:34 +0100, Sérgio Basto wrote:
On Seg, 2014-04-21 at 14:22 -0400, Adam Jackson wrote:
On Mon, 2014-04-21 at 19:52 +0200, drago01 wrote:
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 7:45 PM, Igor Gnatenko i.gnatenko.brain@gmail.com wrote:
How we can fix my stupid error?
"Fixing" it does more harm then good. Just leave it as it and hope the testing it got was enough. If not people will hopefully file bugs anyway.
Yeah, I suspect we'll be fine, just a process mishap. I'll try to be better about communication in future rebases like this.
Hi, I see x11-xorg-server 1.16 (1.15.9) in rawhide , aren't you planing update Fedora 20 with x11-xorg-server 1.15 ?
No.
- ajax
devel@lists.stg.fedoraproject.org
-
Adam Jackson -
drago01 -
Igor Gnatenko -
Jaroslav Reznik -
Matthew Miller -
Michael Catanzaro -
Stephen Gallagher -
Sérgio Basto