rawhide and Fedora QA [was Re: why I'm using Ubuntu instead of Fedora ATM]

[Karsten Wade]

On Mon, 2007-07-23 at 18:51 -0400, Luis Villa wrote:
> (Apologies for the lag, life has been a little crazy of late; I've
> been trying to escape from the computer when not actually needing to
> be in front of it :)

Let me know how that works out. ;-)  

(Myself, I just combine - right now I'm making plum jam, cooking dinner
for the family, cleaning the kitchen, making a blessed cup of coffee,
and my mind is thinking and writing.)

> I was told in IRC that my Fedora account (non-bugzilla) needed a
> particular group, which appeared to be confirmed by:
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/#head-69a2fdca9900f61c9b53d353b2bc5b09d58fdf70

On the face of it, it seems broken to require anything more than a plain
ol' bugzilla account to file and comment on bugs, and close any you
filed.  I insist on the need for the account so there is a way to
contact a reporter - email address thereby being the sole requirement.

> QA, really. The CLA is just one symptom of that; the lack of
> information about rawhide; the poor treatment of updates-testing users
> (things broken for many days, which discourages people from using
> updates-testing at all); the lack of usable definitions for
> severity/priority all jump out.

Is there a list like this on the Wiki?  Somewhere we can prioritize and
account for shortfall.

> I really mostly wasn't thinking about the CLA at all, except inasmuch
> as I can't see any sane way why it should be required for QA work,
> since nothing I do in QA can possibly be copyrightable. But yes, in my
> copious spare time I'm trying to figure out how the CLA can be
> simplified and applied to fewer things. :)

Not to sure about that.  QA folks, for example, write content to
Docs/Beats, and that becomes the release notes.

What about email posting?  I may be crazy, but I like the idea that what
I am writing here can be picked up by someone and written into Fedora
Weekly News without worrying about redistribution rights.

> > Fortunately, we do have this that I worked out with Mark Webbink:
> >
> > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/KarstenWade/Drafts/CLAAcceptanceHierarchies
> >
> > Bottom line -- GPG signing required for work that goes directly into a
> > package we ship.  So, going onto the Wiki can be done with a
> > click-through CLA.  Which is why we are waiting for the next Moin
> > release to implement ... any day now ...
> 
> Hrm. Mind if I talk to Mark about slotting Bugzilla into that
> somewhere? (ideally 'none', but perhaps in the wiki level.)

Go right ahead ... but ...

I almost added bugzilla to the top category, and didn't for a couple of
reasons.  One is the mixed-use bugzilla we have -- I'm not sure if one
can give a general account that would have the permissions we want for
Fedora bugs.  Cf. to anyone being able to file bugs against Red Hat
products.  We can't force a click-through CLA for Fedora in front of
someone who is filing bugs for Red Hat products.  So how to gather
bugzilla into the click-through category like the Wiki?

There is a bit of specter at bugzilla.redhat.com that makes this hard to
figure out.  Maybe we can put a portal/wrapper at bugs.fedoraproject.org
that says i) bugs filed through this wrapper are covered by ii) this
click-through CLA.  Or like the WikiLicense[1] that is on every edit,
reminding the contributor of the CLA.  Again, if there is value and
reason, which is still a moot point ... 

Somewhere in here we might find it is more valuable to have a
stand-alone Fedora bug tracking because of these kind of community
issues.

- Karsten

[1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/WikiLicense
-- 
   Karsten Wade, 108 Editor       ^     Fedora Documentation Project 
 Sr. Developer Relations Mgr.     |  fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject
   quaid.108.redhat.com           |          gpg key: AD0E0C41
////////////////////////////////// \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-advisory-board/attachments/20070723/6a9e163a/attachment.sig>