182 pending F11 stable updates. WTF?
jkeating at redhat.com
Fri May 8 15:12:43 UTC 2009
On Fri, 2009-05-08 at 06:56 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > We're going to be pushing an initial set of F11 updates in the next day
> > or so.
> Why has this not be done earlier?
Partly due to attention spent elsewhere, and partly because we'd rather
our tester base focused on the bits we're proposing for the release,
rather than the bits we're proposing to replace the release.
> I am already facing a pretty nice package queue jam on my part because
> F11 is frozen and hasn't received any update for some time. None of
> these updates are critical nevertheless they contain bug fixes and are
> prerequisites for future development.
> >> * to prevent NEVR issues resulting from F-9, F-10 and F-12 being open,
> >> while F-11 is frozen.
> > Won't help at all, as the F11 release repo doesn't change, nor do the
> > contents of the DVD, so F9/10 will always move ahead of the release.
> You are missing the point: F11 updates would be open NOW!
Which doesn't help the DVD at all.
> F11 GA development would be decoupled from F11 updates!
Which doesn't help the situation where F10 updates will quickly grow NVR
higher than the F11 release.
> rel-eng would cherry-pick the packages they want to put on CD/DVD, while
> F11 updates would move on and would already carry what otherwise would
> hit GA after "release".
releng is a terrible place to "cherry pick". We can't watch each and
every build and decide what is good and what is bad to have in the
release. We have to rely on the informed maintainer proposing a package
break the freeze and be brought into the release.
> >> * rawhide/testing would also help wrt. test rawhide for
> >> experimental/unsafe stuff, which would help improving stability when
> >> rel-eng brands a rawhide snapshot "Fedora release".
> > So you want a rawhide, and a rawerhide?
> Neither, all I am saying is that your work flow _is not designed to help
> stability_, but encourages prematurely shipping broken/untested "crap
That's only if maintainers don't actually take the schedule and
development effort into consideration, completely ignoring the cycle and
only having "crap" packages in rawhide at the time of the freeze. If
they actually used good development practices, the packages in rawhide
at the time of the freeze would not be "crap", they would be the
packages they want in the release, and any changes would be to fix
unexpected bugs in those packages.
> This consideration shows, when packages are being added to rawhide or
> undergo substanticial changes, right before your freeze.
And how is this releng fault, when the maintainers are just plain not
following good development practices?
> You end up with untested/likely broken packages in your release and
> with Fedora releases which are not much more than "rawhide snapshots",
> and CD/DVDs which aren't worth using.
Untested... that's why we compose rawhide from the frozen bits, rawhide
that is used by large numbers of people who are testing the software in
their every day use... That's why we find and fix numerous bugs that
improve the release. That's why good maintainers slow down their
changes prior to the freeze to lessen the risk and to increase the
chance that the release has good quality packages.
> >> There would be one major difference: rel-eng, would have to herry-pick
> >> and move around packages between F11 GA and F11/updates before the release.
> > We already do that based on maintainers and testers who propose and test
> > packages during freezes.
> As having been said many times before: You can't and will never be able
> to so - You are cheating to yourselves, all you can do is to test for
> very few, very isolated issues, on packages you are familiar with.
Perhaps you're just not willing to use good development practices, and
are trying to find a reason to blame our development cycle when this
doesn't work out for you. I can't help but not agree with you.
Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature!
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
More information about the fedora-devel-list