Here is another example where maintainers need to coordinate more and pay attention.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F9/FEDORA-2008-10000 (rpcbind-0.1.7-1.fc9) went into Fedora 9 updates testing on 11-22. On the 25th bodhi feedback showed that this requires selinux changes.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F9/FEDORA-2008-11122 (selinux-policy-3.3.1-115.fc9) went into Fedora 9 updates testing on 12-10. This was the build to fix rpcbind.
On 12-10 rpcbind was submitted for stable. On the same day, bodhi feedback requested that this update not go out until the matching selinux-policy went out to stable.
On 12-11 rpcbind went into stable.
selinux-policy remained in -testing, until 12-15 (today) when it was obsoleted by a newer policy, which is also going into -testing.
This means our F9 users on a supposedly stable release will have non-functional rpcbind (and dependent software) until at least sometime late tomorrow (today's push is still going, won't start another one for at least another 15 hours.
This could have easily been solved if the maintainers for rpcbind and selinux-policy worked together to ensure that the updates went to the same places at the same time.
In the future, please do be aware if your update requires fixes in something else, that everything goes together in lock step.
mgrepl, can you request the latest -policy go to stable so that F9 users can get the proper fixes as soon as possible?
Jesse Keating wrote:
This could have easily been solved if the maintainers for rpcbind and selinux-policy worked together to ensure that the updates went to the same places at the same time.
In the future, please do be aware if your update requires fixes in something else, that everything goes together in lock step.
This would probably be better if it was easier to contact other packagers. Filing bugs to ask questions is painful, but so is finding contact information. For example, the user info page in pkgdb is empty [1]; having basic contact info here would be a huge improvement. The best alternative I know if is to go look in the changelogs in the CVS web frontend.
-Doug
[1] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/users/info/silfreed
On Mon, December 15, 2008 8:00 pm, Douglas E. Warner wrote:
This would probably be better if it was easier to contact other packagers. Filing bugs to ask questions is painful, but so is finding contact information. For example, the user info page in pkgdb is empty [1]; having basic contact info here would be a huge improvement. The best alternative I know if is to go look in the changelogs in the CVS web frontend.
-Doug
[1] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/users/info/silfreed
There is <package>-owner@fedoraproject.org. Needs more advertising?
On Mon, 15 Dec 2008, Douglas E. Warner wrote:
Jesse Keating wrote:
This could have easily been solved if the maintainers for rpcbind and selinux-policy worked together to ensure that the updates went to the same places at the same time.
In the future, please do be aware if your update requires fixes in something else, that everything goes together in lock step.
This would probably be better if it was easier to contact other packagers. Filing bugs to ask questions is painful, but so is finding contact information. For example, the user info page in pkgdb is empty [1]; having basic contact info here would be a huge improvement. The best alternative I know if is to go look in the changelogs in the CVS web frontend.
emailing packagename-owner@fedoraproject.org will work.
-sv
On Mon, 2008-12-15 at 22:00 -0500, Douglas E. Warner wrote:
This would probably be better if it was easier to contact other packagers. Filing bugs to ask questions is painful, but so is finding contact information. For example, the user info page in pkgdb is empty [1]; having basic contact info here would be a huge improvement. The best alternative I know if is to go look in the changelogs in the CVS web frontend.
-Doug
[1] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/users/info/silfreed
As others have mentioned, package-owner@fedoraproject.org Or since you seem to already have username information, user@fedoraproject.org works as well.
Jesse Keating wrote:
As others have mentioned, package-owner@fedoraproject.org Or since you seem to already have username information, user@fedoraproject.org works as well.
With the number of packages I maintain this comes up so rarely that I don't remember these aliases and have to look them up as well; I'm sure I'm not alone.
-Doug
Mine is empty too:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/users/info/rjones
Is there some way to edit this?
Rich.
Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
Mine is empty too:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/users/info/rjones
Is there some way to edit this?
No. But I would love to see some of these ideas implemented :-)
If anyone wants to work on this, it's a relatively segregated part of the pkgdb so it should be reasonably easy to get started on working on it.
-Toshio
Jesse Keating wrote:
Here is another example where maintainers need to coordinate more and pay attention.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F9/FEDORA-2008-10000 (rpcbind-0.1.7-1.fc9) went into Fedora 9 updates testing on 11-22. On the 25th bodhi feedback showed that this requires selinux changes.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F9/FEDORA-2008-11122 (selinux-policy-3.3.1-115.fc9) went into Fedora 9 updates testing on 12-10. This was the build to fix rpcbind.
On 12-10 rpcbind was submitted for stable. On the same day, bodhi feedback requested that this update not go out until the matching selinux-policy went out to stable.
On 12-11 rpcbind went into stable.
Yeah, this is what prompted my earlier post. This also makes me wonder why I bother running updates-testing on some of my machines. Seems like half the time I report an issue, the update gets pushed to stable anyways.
Sorry for coming to this discussion late... I still recovering from 5 days w/out power...
Orion Poplawski wrote:
Jesse Keating wrote:
Here is another example where maintainers need to coordinate more and pay attention.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F9/FEDORA-2008-10000 (rpcbind-0.1.7-1.fc9) went into Fedora 9 updates testing on 11-22. On the 25th bodhi feedback showed that this requires selinux changes.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F9/FEDORA-2008-11122 (selinux-policy-3.3.1-115.fc9) went into Fedora 9 updates testing on 12-10. This was the build to fix rpcbind.
On 12-10 rpcbind was submitted for stable. On the same day, bodhi feedback requested that this update not go out until the matching selinux-policy went out to stable.
On 12-11 rpcbind went into stable.
Yeah, this is what prompted my earlier post. This also makes me wonder why I bother running updates-testing on some of my machines. Seems like half the time I report an issue, the update gets pushed to stable anyways.
The reason I moved rpcbind to stable was I saw the selinux-policy-3.3.1-115 had been built and pushed to testing... So I guess I just assumed selinux-policy would be push to stable as soon as I pushed rpcbind.... as soon as I realized that was not the case, I started to lobbing the selinux-policy maintainer to get the package pushed...
Another caveat was the people needing the new rpcbind package don't need or use selinux so I was getting pressure make the release.. After a number of days of waiting, seeing the fixed selinux package was available plus it truly was an selinux bug (all rpcbind was wanted to so as a setuid() to a non-root user) I decide to make the release... Pissing some people off and pleasing others... (the story of my life! ;-) )
Is there really a clean way of handling something like this? It was not apparent to me...
steved.
On Tue, 2008-12-23 at 18:02 -0500, Steve Dickson wrote:
Is there really a clean way of handling something like this? It was not apparent to me...
Multiple packages can be added to a single bodhi update request, ensuring that they are pushed in unison.
Failing that, you could have waited until the policy package was requested to go stable, so that they would be pushed together.
Jesse Keating wrote:
On Tue, 2008-12-23 at 18:02 -0500, Steve Dickson wrote:
Is there really a clean way of handling something like this? It was not apparent to me...
Multiple packages can be added to a single bodhi update request, ensuring that they are pushed in unison.
hmm... I did look for something like that but didn't see it... I'll take another look...
Failing that, you could have waited until the policy package was requested to go stable, so that they would be pushed together.
I waited 4 or 5 days which annoyed people that didn't need that policy package... so I pushed the packaged and started lobbying... I thought that was a good compromise.
steved.
On Wed, 2008-12-24 at 08:37 -0500, Steve Dickson wrote:
I waited 4 or 5 days which annoyed people that didn't need that policy package... so I pushed the packaged and started lobbying... I thought that was a good compromise.
In that situation, you should comment in bodhi as to why you're going to push it along even with negative karma sitting there. Without doing that, the people providing feedback to you feel like their feedback is being ignored, and will have less motivation to do any testing/feedback at all in the future.
Our testers are a precious precious resource, and should be treated as such.
Jesse Keating wrote:
On Wed, 2008-12-24 at 08:37 -0500, Steve Dickson wrote:
I waited 4 or 5 days which annoyed people that didn't need that policy package... so I pushed the packaged and started lobbying... I thought that was a good compromise.
In that situation, you should comment in bodhi as to why you're going to push it along even with negative karma sitting there. Without doing that, the people providing feedback to you feel like their feedback is being ignored, and will have less motivation to do any testing/feedback at all in the future.
Obviously you have not check the log... I did make a comment about what needed to be done..
Our testers are a precious precious resource, and should be treated as such.
I can't agree with you more...
steved.