5:56 p.m.
Can someone explain why my update[1] which was submitted for F30
stable was not pushed but "marked obsolete"? It was a security
update, too.
Regards,
Dominik
[1] https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-2d381e061b
--
Fedora https://getfedora.org | RPM Fusion http://rpmfusion.org
There should be a science of discontent. People need hard times and
oppression to develop psychic muscles.
-- from "Collected Sayings of Muad'Dib" by the Princess Irulan
6:08 p.m.
New subject: F30 security update submitted for stable "marked obsolete"
instead of being pushed
On 27. 05. 20 0:56, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
Can someone explain why my update[1] which was submitted for F30
stable was not pushed but "marked obsolete"? It was a security
update, too.
Regards,
Dominik
[1] https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-2d381e061b
Fedora 30 went EOL before the update was pushed to stable.
--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok
10:13 p.m.
New subject: F30 security update submitted for stable "marked obsolete" instead of being pushed
On Tuesday, May 26, 2020 4:08:52 PM MST Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 27. 05. 20 0:56, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
> Can someone explain why my update[1] which was submitted for F30
> stable was not pushed but "marked obsolete"? It was a security
> update, too.
>
> Regards,
> Dominik
>
> [1] https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-2d381e061b
Fedora 30 went EOL before the update was pushed to stable.
And that killed a *security update*? Seriously?
--
John M. Harris, Jr.
11:56 p.m.
New subject: F30 security update submitted for stable "marked obsolete"
instead of being pushed
On 5/26/20 8:13 PM, John M. Harris Jr wrote:
On Tuesday, May 26, 2020 4:08:52 PM MST Miro Hrončok wrote:
> On 27. 05. 20 0:56, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
>
>> Can someone explain why my update[1] which was submitted for F30
>> stable was not pushed but "marked obsolete"? It was a security
>> update, too.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Dominik
>>
>> [1] https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-2d381e061b
>
>
> Fedora 30 went EOL before the update was pushed to stable.
And that killed a *security update*? Seriously?
That's what EOL means. Once the switch is flipped, there are no more
updates.
1:16 a.m.
New subject: F30 security update submitted for stable "marked obsolete" instead of being pushed
On Tuesday, May 26, 2020 9:56:48 PM MST Samuel Sieb wrote:
On 5/26/20 8:13 PM, John M. Harris Jr wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 26, 2020 4:08:52 PM MST Miro Hrončok wrote:
>
>> On 27. 05. 20 0:56, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Can someone explain why my update[1] which was submitted for F30
>>> stable was not pushed but "marked obsolete"? It was a security
>>> update, too.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Dominik
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> [1] https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-2d381e061b
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Fedora 30 went EOL before the update was pushed to stable.
>
>
> And that killed a *security update*? Seriously?
That's what EOL means. Once the switch is flipped, there are no more
updates.
This has come up before. That's pretty absurd. If people are still willing to
dedicate their time to updating it, why is that done for a release that's over
*just a year old*, especially given that there are a chunk of users stuck on
F30 forever, until they find a distro that isn't Fedora, or Fedora supports
i686 once more (So unlikely it's not even worth considering, really).
--
John M. Harris, Jr.
3:15 a.m.
New subject: F30 security update submitted for stable "marked obsolete"
instead of being pushed
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512
On Tue, 2020-05-26 at 23:16 -0700, John M. Harris Jr wrote:
On Tuesday, May 26, 2020 9:56:48 PM MST Samuel Sieb wrote:
> On 5/26/20 8:13 PM, John M. Harris Jr wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, May 26, 2020 4:08:52 PM MST Miro Hrončok wrote:
> >
> > > On 27. 05. 20 0:56, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > Can someone explain why my update[1] which was submitted for
> > > > F30
> > > > stable was not pushed but "marked obsolete"? It was a
> > > > security
> > > > update, too.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Dominik
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > [1]
> > > > https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-2d381e061b
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Fedora 30 went EOL before the update was pushed to stable.
> >
> > And that killed a *security update*? Seriously?
>
> That's what EOL means. Once the switch is flipped, there are no
> more
> updates.
This has come up before. That's pretty absurd. If people are still
willing to
dedicate their time to updating it, why is that done for a release
that's over
*just a year old*, especially given that there are a chunk of users
stuck on
F30 forever, until they find a distro that isn't Fedora, or Fedora
supports
i686 once more (So unlikely it's not even worth considering, really).
Why should Fedora provide resources for those maintainers. For a
project, F30 is EOL. That's it. Fedora is not going to support your
updates or anything like that. Doing that would give users false
assumptions that there are still updates coming in and all their
security bugs will be fixed.
If you want to provide any updates, you are free to do it in some other
place, be that COPR (though they also disable EOL chroots quite fast)
or your own buildsystem somewhere else.
--
John M. Harris, Jr.
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
- --
Igor Raits <ignatenkobrain(a)fedoraproject.org>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----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=Adyo
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
1:25 a.m.
New subject: F30 security update submitted for stable "marked obsolete"
instead of being pushed
While I understand the mechanism, I think that this needs to be communicated more clearly.
I've been a packager for close to 3 years now and I admit until I read this e-mail I
wasn't quite sure whether "no updates after EOL" meant "you can't
submit stuff to bodhi", or whether it meant "the updates repo is frozen solid,
whatever didn't make it in, well shucks". (As we can see, it's the latter.)
This got me thinking - could we maybe make bodhi issue some kinda warning? Similar to how
you get an e-mail when the package goes from pending to testing to stable, maybe bodhi
could also give you a warning about impending EOL. Fedora packages need 7 days in testing
(unless they get karma), and the pending->testing and testing->stable pushes take
some time, so let's say 10 days - 10 days before EOL, bodhi stars adding a fat warning
to the packages that says "better get that karma, 'cause if this ain't gonna
make it to stable before YYYY-MM-DD, it'll go down the drain".
1:44 a.m.
New subject: F30 security update submitted for stable "marked obsolete"
instead of being pushed
* Artur Iwicki [27/05/2020 06:25] :
While I understand the mechanism, I think that this needs to be communicated
more clearly. I've been a packager for close to 3 years now and I admit until
I read this e-mail I wasn't quite sure whether "no updates after EOL"
meant
"you can't submit stuff to bodhi", or whether it meant "the updates
repo is
frozen solid, whatever didn't make it in, well shucks". (As we can see,
it's
the latter.)
The Fedora 29 EOL message[1] was a bit more explicit:
"At that time, all open Bugzilla bugs will be closed and no more
package updates will be published."
Emmanuel
[1]
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel-announce@lists.fedora...
8:12 a.m.
New subject: F30 security update submitted for stable "marked obsolete"
instead of being pushed
Am 27.05.20 um 08:25 schrieb Artur Iwicki:
While I understand the mechanism, I think that this needs to be
communicated more clearly. I've been a packager for close to 3 years now and I admit
until I read this e-mail I wasn't quite sure whether "no updates after EOL"
meant "you can't submit stuff to bodhi", or whether it meant "the
updates repo is frozen solid, whatever didn't make it in, well shucks". (As we
can see, it's the latter.)
I checked that update in question and it was ready 9 days ago, but
simply noone cared to give it karma.
I think: To make to work effort acknowlaged, maintainers put into theire
work, all finished/not failed updates should be send to stable when EOL
is flipped.
best regards,
Marius
9:23 a.m.
New subject: F30 security update submitted for stable "marked obsolete"
instead of being pushed
On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 03:12:44PM +0200, Marius Schwarz wrote:
Am 27.05.20 um 08:25 schrieb Artur Iwicki:
> While I understand the mechanism, I think that this needs to be communicated more
clearly. I've been a packager for close to 3 years now and I admit until I read this
e-mail I wasn't quite sure whether "no updates after EOL" meant "you
can't submit stuff to bodhi", or whether it meant "the updates repo is
frozen solid, whatever didn't make it in, well shucks". (As we can see, it's
the latter.)
I checked that update in question and it was ready 9 days ago, but
simply noone cared to give it karma.
I think: To make to work effort acknowlaged, maintainers put into theire
work, all finished/not failed updates should be send to stable when EOL
is flipped.
Yeah, I think that'd be better then simply dropping them, if it's
reasonably easy to implement. By releasing those updates we make
things a bit nicer for users who are staying on a
now-slightly-but-as-time-goes-on-more-and-more-so out-of-date release,
and we'd be conserving the work of our packagers. But if it would be a
major hassle for infra or releng, then meh.
Zbyszek
9:39 a.m.
New subject: F30 security update submitted for stable "marked obsolete"
instead of being pushed
On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 9:29 AM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <
zbyszek(a)in.waw.pl> wrote:
On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 03:12:44PM +0200, Marius Schwarz wrote:
> Am 27.05.20 um 08:25 schrieb Artur Iwicki:
> > While I understand the mechanism, I think that this needs to be
communicated more clearly. I've been a packager for close to 3 years now
and I admit until I read this e-mail I wasn't quite sure whether "no
updates after EOL" meant "you can't submit stuff to bodhi", or whether
it
meant "the updates repo is frozen solid, whatever didn't make it in, well
shucks". (As we can see, it's the latter.)
>
> I checked that update in question and it was ready 9 days ago, but
> simply noone cared to give it karma.
>
> I think: To make to work effort acknowlaged, maintainers put into theire
> work, all finished/not failed updates should be send to stable when EOL
> is flipped.
Yeah, I think that'd be better then simply dropping them, if it's
reasonably easy to implement. By releasing those updates we make
things a bit nicer for users who are staying on a
now-slightly-but-as-time-goes-on-more-and-more-so out-of-date release,
and we'd be conserving the work of our packagers. But if it would be a
major hassle for infra or releng, then meh.
I think a phased approach would be (hopefully) easy to implement.
1. Stop builds at <date>
2. Stop submitting updates on <date>+1 week
3. Stop allowing pushes to stable on <date>+2 weeks.
Something like that anyway.
Thanks,
Richard
11:16 a.m.
New subject: F30 security update submitted for stable "marked obsolete"
instead of being pushed
On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 09:39:47AM -0500, Richard Shaw wrote:
> Yeah, I think that'd be better then simply dropping them, if
it's
> reasonably easy to implement. By releasing those updates we make
> things a bit nicer for users who are staying on a
> now-slightly-but-as-time-goes-on-more-and-more-so out-of-date release,
> and we'd be conserving the work of our packagers. But if it would be a
> major hassle for infra or releng, then meh.
>
I think a phased approach would be (hopefully) easy to implement.
1. Stop builds at <date>
2. Stop submitting updates on <date>+1 week
2½. Push to stable all updates with non-negative karma at <date>+2 weeks?
3. Stop allowing pushes to stable on <date>+2 weeks.
--
Tomasz Torcz Only gods can safely risk perfection,
tomek(a)pipebreaker.pl it's a dangerous thing for a man. — Alia
5:27 p.m.
New subject: F30 security update submitted for stable "marked obsolete"
instead of being pushed
On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 06:16:24PM +0200, Tomasz Torcz wrote:
On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 09:39:47AM -0500, Richard Shaw wrote:
> > Yeah, I think that'd be better then simply dropping them, if it's
> > reasonably easy to implement. By releasing those updates we make
> > things a bit nicer for users who are staying on a
> > now-slightly-but-as-time-goes-on-more-and-more-so out-of-date release,
> > and we'd be conserving the work of our packagers. But if it would be a
> > major hassle for infra or releng, then meh.
> >
>
> I think a phased approach would be (hopefully) easy to implement.
>
> 1. Stop builds at <date>
> 2. Stop submitting updates on <date>+1 week
2½. Push to stable all updates with non-negative karma at <date>+2 weeks?
> 3. Stop allowing pushes to stable on <date>+2 weeks.
I don't think we need a bunch of process here.
How about just saying that the last push will be at 14:00UTC on the last
day of life of the release and maintainers can adjust based on that...
There's all kinds of corner cases that wouldn't be handled by a big
heavy process like above... and it would result in having to remember a
bunch of deadlines instead of just one.
Also, I don't think its good to just push everything at the end.
In some cases, sure, it might be fine, but not others, and we really
should err on the side of caution here because we can't fix anything
after that and the release has been fine for ~18months without update X
anyhow.
kevin
2:43 a.m.
New subject: F30 security update submitted for stable "marked obsolete"
instead of being pushed
On Wednesday, 27 May 2020 at 01:08, Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 27. 05. 20 0:56, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
> Can someone explain why my update[1] which was submitted for F30
> stable was not pushed but "marked obsolete"? It was a security
> update, too.
>
> [1] https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-2d381e061b
Fedora 30 went EOL before the update was pushed to stable.
I would have expected that any updates submitted for stable before the
cut-off time would still be pushed and I was surprised that didn't
happen. Perhaps the cut-off time should have been communicated more
prominently.
A warning in bodhi web interface would have helped, too.
Regards,
Dominik
--
Fedora https://getfedora.org | RPM Fusion http://rpmfusion.org
There should be a science of discontent. People need hard times and
oppression to develop psychic muscles.
-- from "Collected Sayings of Muad'Dib" by the Princess Irulan
3:22 a.m.
New subject: F30 security update submitted for stable "marked obsolete"
instead of being pushed
On 27. 05. 20 9:43, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
On Wednesday, 27 May 2020 at 01:08, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> On 27. 05. 20 0:56, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
>> Can someone explain why my update[1] which was submitted for F30
>> stable was not pushed but "marked obsolete"? It was a security
>> update, too.
>>
>> [1] https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-2d381e061b
>
> Fedora 30 went EOL before the update was pushed to stable.
I would have expected that any updates submitted for stable before the
cut-off time would still be pushed and I was surprised that didn't
happen.
AFAIK this was never the case, but I'm not sure. I remember in the past the
updates just kinda stuck in limbo (being pushed to stable for eternity). At
least now they are marked as obsolete.
Perhaps the cut-off time should have been communicated more
prominently.
Totally agree.
https://pagure.io/releng/issue/9479
A warning in bodhi web interface would have helped, too.
And there as well.
https://github.com/fedora-infra/bodhi/issues/4040
--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok
4:08 a.m.
New subject: F30 security update submitted for stable "marked obsolete"
instead of being pushed
On Wednesday, 27 May 2020 at 10:22, Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 27. 05. 20 9:43, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
> On Wednesday, 27 May 2020 at 01:08, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> > On 27. 05. 20 0:56, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
> > > Can someone explain why my update[1] which was submitted for F30
> > > stable was not pushed but "marked obsolete"? It was a security
> > > update, too.
> > >
> > > [1] https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-2d381e061b
> >
> > Fedora 30 went EOL before the update was pushed to stable.
>
> I would have expected that any updates submitted for stable before the
> cut-off time would still be pushed and I was surprised that didn't
> happen.
AFAIK this was never the case, but I'm not sure. I remember in the past the
updates just kinda stuck in limbo (being pushed to stable for eternity). At
least now they are marked as obsolete.
I see. I guess I haven't submitted an update so close to EOL date for
quite some time so I wasn't affected before.
> Perhaps the cut-off time should have been communicated more
> prominently.
Totally agree.
https://pagure.io/releng/issue/9479
> A warning in bodhi web interface would have helped, too.
And there as well.
https://github.com/fedora-infra/bodhi/issues/4040
Thank you for opening those.
Regards,
Dominik
--
Fedora https://getfedora.org | RPM Fusion http://rpmfusion.org
There should be a science of discontent. People need hard times and
oppression to develop psychic muscles.
-- from "Collected Sayings of Muad'Dib" by the Princess Irulan
9:55 a.m.
New subject: F30 security update submitted for stable "marked obsolete" instead of being pushed
Miro Hrončok wrote:
AFAIK this was never the case, but I'm not sure. I remember in
the past
the updates just kinda stuck in limbo (being pushed to stable for
eternity). At least now they are marked as obsolete.
I think there really ought to be a guarantee that everything queued before
the deadline actually gets pushed in one last push, as opposed to saying
"sorry, the last push was actually hours earlier than the official deadline,
you're screwed forever because we will never do a push again for that
release".
Kevin Kofler
3:25 a.m.
New subject: F30 security update submitted for stable "marked obsolete"
instead of being pushed
On Fri, 29 May 2020 16:55:37 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Miro Hrončok wrote:
> AFAIK this was never the case, but I'm not sure. I remember in the past
> the updates just kinda stuck in limbo (being pushed to stable for
> eternity). At least now they are marked as obsolete.
I think there really ought to be a guarantee that everything queued before
the deadline actually gets pushed in one last push, as opposed to saying
"sorry, the last push was actually hours earlier than the official deadline,
you're screwed forever because we will never do a push again for that
release".
With a properly implemented deadline, the Updates System would close its
doors at a well-defined time prior to a last push. Anything that has entered
the "pending -> stable" queue early enough, would be pushed. Everything else
would be locked and would not be able to change state from testing to stable,
for example.
1404
days inactive
1424
days old
17 comments
14 participants
participants (14)
-
Artur Iwicki -
Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski -
Emmanuel Seyman -
Igor Raits -
John M. Harris Jr -
Kevin Fenzi -
Kevin Kofler -
Marius Schwarz -
Michael Schwendt -
Miro Hrončok -
Richard Shaw -
Samuel Sieb -
Tomasz Torcz -
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek