governance, fesco, board, etc.

[Michael Schwendt]

On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 19:35:22 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:

> On Thu, 2007-06-14 at 09:23 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote:
> > On Thursday 14 June 2007 08:01:37 Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > > > I have to call BS on this one.
> > >
> > > Ask yourself. Is anything about this really working?
> > 
> > Yes, for many things and many cases things are working quite well.  There are 
> > some rough spots, nobody is saying it's perfect, but to say that it's 
> > completely non-functional is just bologna.
> Then let me ask directly: How could it happen that this kernel package
> was released?
> 
> My interpretation of this incident: "system failure".
> Whatever this system is - be it automatic, be it human.
> 
> IMO, EVR breakages and repo inconsistency are avoidable and would expect
> Michael to have scripts for this.

As I don't completely understand that sentence, just to make one thing
clear, I'm not involved in F7 update releases at all.

Additionally, I'd like to point out that criticism and input, which sound
negative, should not be seen as nothing else than complaints. The project
used to be more open to feedback of all sorts. In some parts of the Fedora
Project there's a growing tendency to meet criticism with phrases like
"put up or shut up". Not desirable.

Bodhi'n'stuff: There seem to be technical/design problems in the new
update system workflow such as that bodhi currently cannot assist with
publishing pending updates to a temporary repository. I believe it could
be possible with another tag in koji, which a tool like mash can use to
fetch unreleased packages from. Additionally, defining and pushing groups
of packages doesn't seem to be possible yet either.

With Extras (and its incomplete pushscript helper tools [1]) at least we
*can* run repoclosure prior to and after release of new updates (and
fortunately, blacklisting packages has not been difficult so far). For F7,
apparently, this feature has been neglected completely. Still the release
procedure has been modified so much that packagers are forced to push
several knobs without that there is policy about it and additionally the
bodhi admins need to approve update requests without that they can run any
checks at all. Weird is also how broken deps in updates apparently are
seen as normality instead of things that should be fixed quickly.

[1] The next [experimental] step with Extras pushscripts and repoclosure
might have been to add automation to the trivial step "no broken dep in
needsign => push all", support for finding, checking and excluding groups
of packages that break deps, and probably doing the multilib dance in the
temporary repos created from needsign.