Updates System

[Ralf Corsepius]

On Wed, 2007-05-16 at 00:32 -0400, Warren Togami wrote:
> Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > Possibly, because RH once again seems to have failed to communicate what
> > THEIR plan is and seems to be pressing something which doesn't seem to
> > be clear to themselves onto the community.
> > 
> > At the moment I am primarily referring to this nonsensical regressions
> > this new release flow and koji impose on my packages. I see regressions
> > all over the place: What once was simple, now requires additional effort
> > and wastes my time.
> > 
> > Ralf
> 
> Ralf,
> 
> You are going way overboard in escalating what is entirely a non-issue.
What you consider "non-issue", I consider a fundamental flaw in
work-flow causing harm to community's involvment into Fedora.

That's why I am making a fuzz about it.

> All package updates going out after F7 release will need to go through 
> the update system.  Pushing packages in this way is NOT a horrible 
> burden that you make it out to be. 
Update 40 packages at once and you'll probably notice why I consider
this to be a crack ridden work-flow. 2 steps more per package and one
form per package demonstrates the flaws of this workflow.

>  This is only formalizing a process 
> that was very uncontrolled in the past only because we didn't have time 
> to write anything like this.
I don't see any thing uncontrolled. To the contrary, I perceive your new
work-flow to suffer from "Prussian State Officer" (Germ. proverb.
"Preussische Beamtenmentalität") mentality.

> Fact of the matter is, we were doing poorly in Fedora in the past 
> without package update announcements for Extras.  Sure, this was 
> harmless in most cases, but in the case of security this was quite 
> possibly dangerous and not in the interest of spreading necessary 
> awareness to our community.
> 
> Today Core updates happen using this update system.  It is a smooth and 
> formal process.
This might be your vision - It definitely is not mine.

0) maintainer tests package's  functionality.
> 1) Maintainer checks changes into CVS branch.
> 2) Maintainer builds.
> 3) Maintainer tests that build.
> 4) Maintainer fills out the form with the N-V-R, optional security 
> (yes/no), optional Bug numbers fixed, and some fills in some details of 
> what the update is about, then chooses updates or updates-testing.
> 5) Submit, where security and/or rel-eng team pushes it through.

Now where in this scheme is Will Woods? I don't see him testing
anything. All I see is more bureaucracy and more manual steps than
before.

> This is necessary and we are going to do it. 
Yes, you think it's necessary and you apparently don't give a damn about
other people's opinion - poor.

>  I believe after working 
> out some initial kinks, participants will realize how much it really 
> doesn't suck.
... if you think so, I could not disagree more.

> However, if you don't wish to participate then you are free to leave.
I did not expect any different answer from a person who could not
refrain from attacking and offending me in rude language, before.

You will have to understand that the bridges between you and me are
burnt.

Ralf