changes are needed, we need keep moving

[Eric Rostetter]

Quoting Pekka Savola <pekkas at netcore.fi>:

> Folks,
> 
> The Fedora Legacy updates aren't progressing.

Actually, they are.  Just very slowly.

> Something needs to
> start happening.  Ideas?

People who have an interest in having packages released need to start
doing QA (and/or other work for the group).
 
> My proposal:
> 
>   If one distribution version of a package has one VERIFY vote, all the
>   versions will automatically be released after a timeout of XX (where
>   I suggest XX is 2 weeks) from the first VERIFY -- except if someone
>   identifies issues which require discussion or more work.

You might as well just publish them without testing then. One verify vote
isn't significantly different than no verify votes.  I'd say any plan
that requires only one verify vote is worthless.

I'm not against the timeout, in fact there is supposed to be a timeout
in the process, though I don't remember what it is.  Perhaps we need to
revisit the timeout issue, with the goal of putting someone in charge of
watching the packages for timeout conditions.  Right now, no one is AFAIK
watching for such situations, so even if something had multiple verify votes
and has stalled, no one notices and pushes it out.  Seems like another
essential job waiting to be filled.

> This is a tradeoff between quality, timeliness and actually delivering
> the updates.

Your proposal as-is is no trade off.  You're simply saying we should release
updates without proper testing.  But it does raise a valid issue (we're not
actively watching for stalled issues, and pursuing them correctly).

> Because most of the folks worried about quality of the
> updates are not actually doing much of testing, I don't see why we
> should be stalling because folks seem to be using updates-testing
> instead of updates.

If people are using testing-updates and not reporting their success,
then that is the issue, and that is what needs to be fixed.  I'm not
sure if this is the case.  If it is, maybe we could make posting a
success report easier (e.g. a web form they fill out?)

>  If something breaks with the update, we'll just
> fix it afterwards and say "well, you should have tested the update in
> 2 weeks and reported the problems".

And they will rightly say, "No, FL legacy released it as tested and
passing QA, so the problem is with FL and not me."
 
> (FWIW, the current "issues" list is:
> http://www.netcore.fi/pekkas/buglist.html)

I find posting that list is the thing that gets things rolling. In other
words, very few people even consider testing until an issue list is posted
at which point they check it out and start testing packages.  I hate to say
it, but regular posting of the issue list (at least those in updates-testing
needed testing) would probably help greatly.
 
> --
> Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
> Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
> Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

-- 
Eric Rostetter