-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Hi All,
As Design Suite, Games and Security Spins were not signed off[1] for Beta they have been removed from F20. They will need to reapply for inclusion in F21.
Dennis
[1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/20/Spins
On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 19:09:54 -0600, Dennis Gilmore dennis@ausil.us wrote:
As Design Suite, Games and Security Spins were not signed off[1] for Beta they have been removed from F20. They will need to reapply for inclusion in F21.
So I have been waiting for the Gold version of beta to do my final sign off, just like I did for alpha. I have been keeping an eye on the nightly composes for breakage, but haven't been doing regular downloads of them. I planned to go through it tomorrow which I think was about the same timing as I had for Alpha. Given that Beta isn't going live until Tuesday, what's the hurry to kick these out?
I had put a copy of Games on a USB stick earlier today, but wasn't planning on doing my sign off testing until tomorrow (Saturday). Given that we weren't required to test every TC and RC, I figured I would just keep an eye out for problems in composes as other than a compose conflict, the games spin is very likely to work if the XFCE spin works, and I'd just sign off on the gold RC.
On 08/11/13 07:28 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 19:09:54 -0600, Dennis Gilmore dennis@ausil.us wrote:
As Design Suite, Games and Security Spins were not signed off[1] for Beta they have been removed from F20. They will need to reapply for inclusion in F21.
So I have been waiting for the Gold version of beta to do my final sign off, just like I did for alpha. I have been keeping an eye on the nightly composes for breakage, but haven't been doing regular downloads of them. I planned to go through it tomorrow which I think was about the same timing as I had for Alpha. Given that Beta isn't going live until Tuesday, what's the hurry to kick these out?
I had put a copy of Games on a USB stick earlier today, but wasn't planning on doing my sign off testing until tomorrow (Saturday). Given that we weren't required to test every TC and RC, I figured I would just keep an eye out for problems in composes as other than a compose conflict, the games spin is very likely to work if the XFCE spin works, and I'd just sign off on the gold RC. _______________________________________________
I share the same view with Bruno. What could be improved is to send a reminder to sign off before the deadline given the delay that often recurring on each Fedora release. Design Suite is ready for Beta.
Regards,
Luya
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 11/09/2013 09:30 AM, Luya Tshimbalanga wrote:
I share the same view with Bruno. What could be improved is to send a reminder to sign off before the deadline given the delay that often recurring on each Fedora release. Design Suite is ready for Beta.
I missed the announcement about the sign-off. Well, the Security Lab is ready. Regularly tests (especially after the transition from LXDE to Xfce) with the nightly composes showed that the spin is working. The difference between the Security Spin and the Xfce Spin are minimal. This means that if the Xfce spin is working the Security Spin will too.
The menu is working but it's still too big for the target size of 700 MB. I bumped that now to 1 GB. It's sad that it no longer fits on a CD.
Kind regards,
Fabian
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512
On Sat, 09 Nov 2013 15:44:18 +0100 Fabian Affolter fab@fedoraproject.org wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 11/09/2013 09:30 AM, Luya Tshimbalanga wrote:
I share the same view with Bruno. What could be improved is to send a reminder to sign off before the deadline given the delay that often recurring on each Fedora release. Design Suite is ready for Beta.
I missed the announcement about the sign-off. Well, the Security Lab is ready. Regularly tests (especially after the transition from LXDE to Xfce) with the nightly composes showed that the spin is working. The difference between the Security Spin and the Xfce Spin are minimal. This means that if the Xfce spin is working the Security Spin will too.
This is not completely true... for example the F19 security spin had broken menu's due to Xfce moving from Terminal to xfce4-terminal.
Being similar is fine, but there's still at least some level of minimal testing needed, IMHO.
The menu is working but it's still too big for the target size of 700 MB. I bumped that now to 1 GB. It's sad that it no longer fits on a CD.
yeah, everything grows over time. ;(
kevin
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 11/09/2013 07:23 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Sat, 09 Nov 2013 15:44:18 +0100 Fabian Affolter fab@fedoraproject.org wrote:
I missed the announcement about the sign-off. Well, the Security Lab is ready. Regularly tests (especially after the transition from LXDE to Xfce) with the nightly composes showed that the spin is working. The difference between the Security Spin and the Xfce Spin are minimal. This means that if the Xfce spin is working the Security Spin will too.
This is not completely true... for example the F19 security spin had broken menu's due to Xfce moving from Terminal to xfce4-terminal.
At this point in time the Security Spin still was based on LXDE. We learned the lesson and updated the spec file of the menu to have at least a little chance to prevent this from happening again.
Being similar is fine, but there's still at least some level of minimal testing needed, IMHO.
I completely agree.
Kind regards,
Fabian
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
El Fri, 8 Nov 2013 21:28:18 -0600 Bruno Wolff III bruno@wolff.to escribió:
On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 19:09:54 -0600, Dennis Gilmore dennis@ausil.us wrote:
As Design Suite, Games and Security Spins were not signed off[1] for Beta they have been removed from F20. They will need to reapply for inclusion in F21.
So I have been waiting for the Gold version of beta to do my final sign off, just like I did for alpha. I have been keeping an eye on the nightly composes for breakage, but haven't been doing regular downloads of them. I planned to go through it tomorrow which I think was about the same timing as I had for Alpha. Given that Beta isn't going live until Tuesday, what's the hurry to kick these out?
Everything is on the primary mirror already, the tree is done. Waiting until after we have shipped the release is waiting too long, if there is issues we cant fix them.
I had put a copy of Games on a USB stick earlier today, but wasn't planning on doing my sign off testing until tomorrow (Saturday). Given that we weren't required to test every TC and RC, I figured I would just keep an eye out for problems in composes as other than a compose conflict, the games spin is very likely to work if the XFCE spin works, and I'd just sign off on the gold RC.
Sorry you figured wrong. You should have asked. Security and Games should have been removed from Alpha since there is no sign they were tested then. When we decide on a gold release that means we have tested it and are sure it is good. you need to test before then.
Dennis
On Sat, Nov 09, 2013 at 07:38:00 -0600, Dennis Gilmore dennis@ausil.us wrote:
Sorry you figured wrong. You should have asked. Security and Games should have been removed from Alpha since there is no sign they were tested then. When we decide on a gold release that means we have tested it and are sure it is good. you need to test before then.
I did sign off on games for the alpha on September 19th. Vicodan removed my sign off on September 23rd. It looks like I incorrectly remembered how long after the alpha Go / No-Go meeting I waited. I thought I had waited until Friday night or Saturday, but it turns out I did it the same day as the Go / No-Go meeting in the evening.
The main add on issues for games are size and compose. I did keep an eye out for issues there. Otherwise it's pretty much if XFCE works, games is going to work. It just seemed odd to do an early sign off, when things could get broken afterwards.
I put back the same sign off text I had put in for the alpha, before it was removed. I also added text for beta as I finished my sign off testing this morning.
Am Samstag, den 09.11.2013, 07:38 -0600 schrieb Dennis Gilmore:
El Fri, 8 Nov 2013 21:28:18 -0600 Bruno Wolff III bruno@wolff.to escribió:
On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 19:09:54 -0600, Dennis Gilmore dennis@ausil.us wrote:
As Design Suite, Games and Security Spins were not signed off[1] for Beta they have been removed from F20. They will need to reapply for inclusion in F21.
So I have been waiting for the Gold version of beta to do my final sign off, just like I did for alpha. I have been keeping an eye on the nightly composes for breakage, but haven't been doing regular downloads of them. I planned to go through it tomorrow which I think was about the same timing as I had for Alpha. Given that Beta isn't going live until Tuesday, what's the hurry to kick these out?
Everything is on the primary mirror already, the tree is done. Waiting until after we have shipped the release is waiting too long, if there is issues we cant fix them.
I had put a copy of Games on a USB stick earlier today, but wasn't planning on doing my sign off testing until tomorrow (Saturday). Given that we weren't required to test every TC and RC, I figured I would just keep an eye out for problems in composes as other than a compose conflict, the games spin is very likely to work if the XFCE spin works, and I'd just sign off on the gold RC.
Sorry you figured wrong. You should have asked.
Dennis,
with all due respect, but I think your attitude it fundamentally wrong.
You are the Fedora release manager. It's your job to communicate deadlines, to reach out to the people affected and nag them. You are getting paid to do this, but you expect volunteers to ask you? Seems you are living in an upside-down world.
We had the same situation with F19 and someone (I don't remember who. Matthew? Adam? Peter?) put it in a nutshell: "Dennis, you screwed it up. Stop arguing." AFAIR you promised you would do better, but I don't see any change.
Please be so kind as to tell me: 1. Did you send out reminders to the mailing lists? I don't see anything on this list. 2. Did you send out reminders to the spin owners directly? 3. What test cases do you think needs to be run on spins you want to remove? All are based on Desktop spins which are already tested. The only thing worth testing is Testcase_desktop_menus, but it is due for final, not beta. QA has no other testcases or criteria the spins need to meet. 4. Do we actually need to run test cases for non-desktop spins? They are not listed in the wiki, neither in the template nor on any of the test results pages.
I do understand that as the release engineer, you don't want to ship spins that don't work. I agree we need to get rid of unmaintained and untested spins. But none of the spins you want to remove seem unmaintained for me. Frankly speaking it looks to me like you are trying to reduce your workload by all means necessary.
Security and Games should have been removed from Alpha since there is no sign they were tested then.
Then we would need to remove LXDE, too.
When we decide on a gold release that means we have tested it and are sure it is good. you need to test before then.
We are not gold yet, are we?
I apologize I am very direct in this mail. With your attitude, you are driving volunteers away from Fedora. I know some who are close to resign and I cannot accept this.
Best regards, Christoph
On Sun, 10 Nov 2013 00:00:42 +0100 Christoph Wickert christoph.wickert@gmail.com wrote:
Dennis,
with all due respect, but I think your attitude it fundamentally wrong.
You are the Fedora release manager. It's your job to communicate deadlines, to reach out to the people affected and nag them. You are getting paid to do this, but you expect volunteers to ask you? Seems you are living in an upside-down world.
Perhaps you are thinking of the Fedora Program manager here? jreznik?
We had the same situation with F19 and someone (I don't remember who. Matthew? Adam? Peter?) put it in a nutshell: "Dennis, you screwed it up. Stop arguing." AFAIR you promised you would do better, but I don't see any change.
I'm not sure what this is refering to?
Also, I am not Dennis (obviously), but I've been trying to drive some of this process, so feel free to yell at me and also I'll try and answer your concerns.
Please be so kind as to tell me: 1. Did you send out reminders to the mailing lists? I don't see anything on this list.
We could send reminders I guess. Just "please test your spin"? Shouldn't that all be implied?
I did send a email to test/devel/this list: [Fedora-spins] IMPORTANT, please read: Spins QA signoff for milestones
2. Did you send out reminders to the spin owners directly?
Do you have a up to date list of them? I looked a few months ago and on some of them I couldn't figure it out at all. I was hoping perhaps strangely that there would be a list all of them would be on... like this one?
3. What test cases do you think needs to be run on spins you want to remove? All are based on Desktop spins which are already tested. The only thing worth testing isTestcase_desktop_menus, but it is due for final, not beta. QA has no other testcases or criteria the spins need to meet.
General functionality. That it boots, that the menus and such work. Basically avoiding things like:
- f19 security spin shipping with all broken menus. - fN design suite where network didn't work. - over indented sizes basically all the time.
Brown paper bag issues you can find using the image for a few minutes. Is that too much to ask for? one person in the world testing just one TC or RC compose of the thing?
4. Do we actually need to run test cases for non-desktop spins? They are not listed in the wiki, neither in the template noron any of the test results pages.
Some of the spins have actually started writing their own, which is great, but really I just wanted a "does this thing have any glaring errors that make it not work at all" test..
I do understand that as the release engineer, you don't want to ship spins that don't work. I agree we need to get rid of unmaintained and untested spins. But none of the spins you want to remove seem unmaintained for me. Frankly speaking it looks to me like you are trying to reduce your workload by all means necessary.
I can't speak for dennis, but he has said many times this isn't about his work, he can produce all the spins all the time.
Security and Games should have been removed from Alpha since there is no sign they were tested then.
Then we would need to remove LXDE, too.
No, there was someone who tested it and signed off on it.
When we decide on a gold release that means we have tested it and are sure it is good. you need to test before then.
We are not gold yet, are we?
Yes. At thursdays go/no-go meeting we are 'go' for f20beta. It's setup and syncing to mirrors now.
I apologize I am very direct in this mail. With your attitude, you are driving volunteers away from Fedora. I know some who are close to resign and I cannot accept this.
Well, I'm personally open to ideas. I'm a bit frustrated too, because I tried really hard this cycle to post to devel and test and here about the proposed requirements. I got some very few replies. I don't know how better to communicate the changes and get people to agree to them.
Then we always get "Oh no, we didn't know, try it again next cycle". Well, I did. I wanted to do this in f19, but backed off when people said it wasn't communicated. I posted a number of times at the early part of the cycle, I got FESCo to ack the changes.
How can we improve the process? How on earth can I get spin maintainers to agree to changes! How can we stop shipping things 0 people test?
kevin
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
El Sat, 9 Nov 2013 16:26:14 -0700 Kevin Fenzi kevin@scrye.com escribió:
On Sun, 10 Nov 2013 00:00:42 +0100 Christoph Wickert christoph.wickert@gmail.com wrote:
Dennis,
with all due respect, but I think your attitude it fundamentally wrong.
You are the Fedora release manager. It's your job to communicate deadlines, to reach out to the people affected and nag them. You are getting paid to do this, but you expect volunteers to ask you? Seems you are living in an upside-down world.
Perhaps you are thinking of the Fedora Program manager here? jreznik?
As Kevin said, the person responsible for bugging people and organising the schedule is Jaroslav.
My Job is to make and deliver what is supposed to be made and delivered.
We had the same situation with F19 and someone (I don't remember who. Matthew? Adam? Peter?) put it in a nutshell: "Dennis, you screwed it up. Stop arguing." AFAIR you promised you would do better, but I don't see any change.
I'm not sure what this is refering to?
Also, I am not Dennis (obviously), but I've been trying to drive some of this process, so feel free to yell at me and also I'll try and answer your concerns.
I believe that communications have been much better this time around. I have been expressing concerns with the spins process for some time now, Kevin has been good enough to do the majority of the work to drive change here. There has been discussions here and on devel list about changing the process, FESCo signed off on it, spins owners have not followed it. I am not trying to be harsh or put anyone down, but you really need to meet me in the middle somewhere.
Please be so kind as to tell me: 1. Did you send out reminders to the mailing lists? I don't see anything on this list.
We could send reminders I guess. Just "please test your spin"? Shouldn't that all be implied?
I did send a email to test/devel/this list: [Fedora-spins] IMPORTANT, please read: Spins QA signoff for milestones
2. Did you send out reminders to the spin owners directly?Do you have a up to date list of them? I looked a few months ago and on some of them I couldn't figure it out at all. I was hoping perhaps strangely that there would be a list all of them would be on... like this one?
As with Kevin, I don't know who are the owners for most of the Spins.
3. What test cases do you think needs to be run on spins youwant to remove? All are based on Desktop spins which are already tested. The only thing worth testing is Testcase_desktop_menus, but it is due for final, not beta. QA has no other testcases or criteria the spins need to meet.
General functionality. That it boots, that the menus and such work. Basically avoiding things like:
- f19 security spin shipping with all broken menus.
- fN design suite where network didn't work.
- over indented sizes basically all the time.
Brown paper bag issues you can find using the image for a few minutes. Is that too much to ask for? one person in the world testing just one TC or RC compose of the thing?
As Kevin said all we asked for was some basic testing to make sure that things were not obviously broken. we have shipped too many spins in the past broken. we even explicitly make all spins at every TC and RC through the whole cycle now.
4. Do we actually need to run test cases for non-desktop spins? They are not listed in the wiki, neither in the template noron any of the test results pages.
Some of the spins have actually started writing their own, which is great, but really I just wanted a "does this thing have any glaring errors that make it not work at all" test..
echo what Kevin has said here.
I do understand that as the release engineer, you don't want to ship spins that don't work. I agree we need to get rid of unmaintained and untested spins. But none of the spins you want to remove seem unmaintained for me. Frankly speaking it looks to me like you are trying to reduce your workload by all means necessary.
I can't speak for dennis, but he has said many times this isn't about his work, he can produce all the spins all the time.
Removing the spins is more work than shipping them. I ant to make sure we don't ship things that are broken because we never bothered to test. I've said this a few times. I am happy to make everything that people want, but i want to make sure it works, again meet in the middle.
Security and Games should have been removed from Alpha since there is no sign they were tested then.
Then we would need to remove LXDE, too.
No, there was someone who tested it and signed off on it.
LXDE was signed off in the wiki and followed the policy, Games and Security have not been signed off in the wiki at all. Design Suite was signed off for Alpha but not Beta.
When we decide on a gold release that means we have tested it and are sure it is good. you need to test before then.
We are not gold yet, are we?
Yes. At thursdays go/no-go meeting we are 'go' for f20beta. It's setup and syncing to mirrors now.
as kevin said.
I apologize I am very direct in this mail. With your attitude, you are driving volunteers away from Fedora. I know some who are close to resign and I cannot accept this.
I have really tried to work with everyone. I'm sorry you don't like my attitude, quite frankly I don't really like yours right now, but I am not going to let that get in the way of trying to deliver a tested Fedora. We did discuss the changes, we even had FESCo sign off on them. It really is not at all about me. I really don't think its unfair that people be asked to test and fill in some info in the wiki.
Well, I'm personally open to ideas. I'm a bit frustrated too, because I tried really hard this cycle to post to devel and test and here about the proposed requirements. I got some very few replies. I don't know how better to communicate the changes and get people to agree to them.
Then we always get "Oh no, we didn't know, try it again next cycle". Well, I did. I wanted to do this in f19, but backed off when people said it wasn't communicated. I posted a number of times at the early part of the cycle, I got FESCo to ack the changes.
How can we improve the process? How on earth can I get spin maintainers to agree to changes! How can we stop shipping things 0 people test?
I think we need to at the least replace Christoph as the spins wrangler because while I believe he completely intends the very best he is way over committed and is not getting the job done. Does Spins fit into the Workstation Working group? do we need a Spins working group. We do need to make sure that changes for the better happen.
I do think I will give the 3 spins a reprive and add them back to beta, at the least it means more work for me to undo their removal, as well as work from websites to add them back to the web pages and quite possibly work for others that I am forgetting right now. its not a simple thing to do that only effects me.
Dennis
On Sat, Nov 09, 2013 at 20:44:11 -0600, Dennis Gilmore dennis@ausil.us wrote:
LXDE was signed off in the wiki and followed the policy, Games and Security have not been signed off in the wiki at all. Design Suite was signed off for Alpha but not Beta.
As I stated previously, Games was signed off for alpha, but vicodan removed that sign off, four days after I did it.
I do think I will give the 3 spins a reprive and add them back to beta, at the least it means more work for me to undo their removal, as well as work from websites to add them back to the web pages and quite possibly work for others that I am forgetting right now. its not a simple thing to do that only effects me.
If the process is still that we can get spins back for final by filing a releng ticket, I don't see the missing beta as that horrible. People who really want to test Games can pull a nightly or rc5 from the staging area.
I'd like to make sure the process is documented somewhere on the wiki and that the proper deadline is spelled out.
P.S. For everyone in this discussion, please assume good intentions on the part of your peers.
On 10.11.2013 03:44, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
Security and Games should have been removed from Alpha since there is no sign they were tested then.
LXDE was signed off in the wiki and followed the policy, Games and Security have not been signed off in the wiki at all. Design Suite was signed off for Alpha but not Beta.
yes there was no sign in this new created wikipage because we just not knew about it. Nobody wonders why spins that are in Fedora since years, just ignore that new created wikipage? This does not mean we have not worked on it or tested it - we even blogged about tests!
http://fabian-affolter.ch/blog/fedora-security-lab-20-alpha-test-compose-2-t...
and btw. our wikipage and our project page have proper contact details: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Security_Lab https://fedorahosted.org/security-spin/
cu Joerg
----- Original Message -----
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
El Sat, 9 Nov 2013 16:26:14 -0700 Kevin Fenzi kevin@scrye.com escribió:
On Sun, 10 Nov 2013 00:00:42 +0100 Christoph Wickert christoph.wickert@gmail.com wrote:
Dennis,
with all due respect, but I think your attitude it fundamentally wrong.
You are the Fedora release manager. It's your job to communicate deadlines, to reach out to the people affected and nag them. You are getting paid to do this, but you expect volunteers to ask you? Seems you are living in an upside-down world.
Perhaps you are thinking of the Fedora Program manager here? jreznik?
As Kevin said, the person responsible for bugging people and organising the schedule is Jaroslav.
Yeah, that's me but I've never been asked to put it into schedule. And I'd be more than happy to do so, even do that bugging part.
I'd say the Go/No-Go should be the break point to release/not to release as for primary offering. It could be a part of the Go/No-Go meeting to state release readiness of all deliverables we have (based on the sign offs or directly in the meeting?).
Do we have anything as https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_20_Beta_RC5_Desktop for marking tests passed or just http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/20/Spins?
My Job is to make and deliver what is supposed to be made and delivered.
And thank you for that!
I'm not going to comment what's written bellow, I think Dennis covered it pretty well. I'm sorry if I missed the spis process, I know it was happening and now I know it's enforced - so let's try to find the way how to put it into schedule, communicate it better. It's definitely worth having it, and I'd be more than happy to help with it!
Jaroslav
We had the same situation with F19 and someone (I don't remember who. Matthew? Adam? Peter?) put it in a nutshell: "Dennis, you screwed it up. Stop arguing." AFAIR you promised you would do better, but I don't see any change.
I'm not sure what this is refering to?
Also, I am not Dennis (obviously), but I've been trying to drive some of this process, so feel free to yell at me and also I'll try and answer your concerns.
I believe that communications have been much better this time around. I have been expressing concerns with the spins process for some time now, Kevin has been good enough to do the majority of the work to drive change here. There has been discussions here and on devel list about changing the process, FESCo signed off on it, spins owners have not followed it. I am not trying to be harsh or put anyone down, but you really need to meet me in the middle somewhere.
Please be so kind as to tell me: 1. Did you send out reminders to the mailing lists? I don't see anything on this list.
We could send reminders I guess. Just "please test your spin"? Shouldn't that all be implied?
I did send a email to test/devel/this list: [Fedora-spins] IMPORTANT, please read: Spins QA signoff for milestones
2. Did you send out reminders to the spin owners directly?Do you have a up to date list of them? I looked a few months ago and on some of them I couldn't figure it out at all. I was hoping perhaps strangely that there would be a list all of them would be on... like this one?
As with Kevin, I don't know who are the owners for most of the Spins.
3. What test cases do you think needs to be run on spins youwant to remove? All are based on Desktop spins which are already tested. The only thing worth testing is Testcase_desktop_menus, but it is due for final, not beta. QA has no other testcases or criteria the spins need to meet.
General functionality. That it boots, that the menus and such work. Basically avoiding things like:
- f19 security spin shipping with all broken menus.
- fN design suite where network didn't work.
- over indented sizes basically all the time.
Brown paper bag issues you can find using the image for a few minutes. Is that too much to ask for? one person in the world testing just one TC or RC compose of the thing?
As Kevin said all we asked for was some basic testing to make sure that things were not obviously broken. we have shipped too many spins in the past broken. we even explicitly make all spins at every TC and RC through the whole cycle now.
4. Do we actually need to run test cases for non-desktop spins? They are not listed in the wiki, neither in the template noron any of the test results pages.
Some of the spins have actually started writing their own, which is great, but really I just wanted a "does this thing have any glaring errors that make it not work at all" test..
echo what Kevin has said here.
I do understand that as the release engineer, you don't want to ship spins that don't work. I agree we need to get rid of unmaintained and untested spins. But none of the spins you want to remove seem unmaintained for me. Frankly speaking it looks to me like you are trying to reduce your workload by all means necessary.
I can't speak for dennis, but he has said many times this isn't about his work, he can produce all the spins all the time.
Removing the spins is more work than shipping them. I ant to make sure we don't ship things that are broken because we never bothered to test. I've said this a few times. I am happy to make everything that people want, but i want to make sure it works, again meet in the middle.
Security and Games should have been removed from Alpha since there is no sign they were tested then.
Then we would need to remove LXDE, too.
No, there was someone who tested it and signed off on it.
LXDE was signed off in the wiki and followed the policy, Games and Security have not been signed off in the wiki at all. Design Suite was signed off for Alpha but not Beta.
When we decide on a gold release that means we have tested it and are sure it is good. you need to test before then.
We are not gold yet, are we?
Yes. At thursdays go/no-go meeting we are 'go' for f20beta. It's setup and syncing to mirrors now.
as kevin said.
I apologize I am very direct in this mail. With your attitude, you are driving volunteers away from Fedora. I know some who are close to resign and I cannot accept this.
I have really tried to work with everyone. I'm sorry you don't like my attitude, quite frankly I don't really like yours right now, but I am not going to let that get in the way of trying to deliver a tested Fedora. We did discuss the changes, we even had FESCo sign off on them. It really is not at all about me. I really don't think its unfair that people be asked to test and fill in some info in the wiki.
Well, I'm personally open to ideas. I'm a bit frustrated too, because I tried really hard this cycle to post to devel and test and here about the proposed requirements. I got some very few replies. I don't know how better to communicate the changes and get people to agree to them.
Then we always get "Oh no, we didn't know, try it again next cycle". Well, I did. I wanted to do this in f19, but backed off when people said it wasn't communicated. I posted a number of times at the early part of the cycle, I got FESCo to ack the changes.
How can we improve the process? How on earth can I get spin maintainers to agree to changes! How can we stop shipping things 0 people test?
I think we need to at the least replace Christoph as the spins wrangler because while I believe he completely intends the very best he is way over committed and is not getting the job done. Does Spins fit into the Workstation Working group? do we need a Spins working group. We do need to make sure that changes for the better happen.
I do think I will give the 3 spins a reprive and add them back to beta, at the least it means more work for me to undo their removal, as well as work from websites to add them back to the web pages and quite possibly work for others that I am forgetting right now. its not a simple thing to do that only effects me.
Dennis -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)
iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJSfvMCAAoJEH7ltONmPFDRRTAP/A7GqW9DTn9YLdxF6dksTqsA SjA/qFrzrHlGLU77dIStXkPAOoOgPocLZT2qhAonHvFPlsGP4doYE/oGGr/EqMul pAxpiAUKX0ChgA12EN6lD88+HrgvnuRqqMfBAXdC/eUbfImIfLuD60WMAlkCPX2+ IQX7i9sOkoUe6LEujU60xM2oywHT5Fj5OoxEPK+OvWuNeoErvoAW61/ASQ/V+qXM XvurLFrFOhQ3/bz5LV+Yh9jsb19oWKNQ9bTSd7iAbV9HtuwxFN0Q21ts0gYKW9Rm xh0PLCYZqXvY6beSKnkHkze3dyNvosDh/tyZrwivax1BE7o3SNvRN6odaQoY6rHW RuBdtLN/u8kpBaCG+TtD8L3XQ1hFDUUOb/mmdntTZswh2/KhtG8V8X2XYZrrIbIx WaQK27iIJQBF/Zt7Ptj/2uYOOlwTQNLIvKv0y9upsJ8rq+4rEDNeU6dx0zAPhNnO B6ZdVzgFzmnlXW/fwuNJ935loVxcN9Ca8JtZZ5gw2jeF6wRsnfst5Ht5Z4OfYIwR 2ZzF1pKplXrj9FpTvdIb38qI347cpFghrrP02rsEnMESfwVmTByyNT8ZRUIV5ZUU pfIiqUtlwGI7HA4QyyFXzJURXRO6M+30b8P2tV5illrfGmqceADTh2xgE4js047Z wAiLA+Hwq6UPWcJ4Rmhl =aqcO -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ spins mailing list spins@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/spins
On 11 November 2013 11:56, Jaroslav Reznik jreznik@redhat.com wrote:
----- Original Message -----
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
I'd say the Go/No-Go should be the break point to release/not to release as for primary offering. It could be a part of the Go/No-Go meeting to state release readiness of all deliverables we have (based on the sign offs or directly in the meeting?).
The slightly tricky bit is that a spin is non-blocking. Which is maybe what's caused some of the confusion over when the deadlines are (it sounds like "design" were testing much more regularly than we -Jam- were and fell foul of being unsure what would count as the final testing for a stage). I doubt anyone wants spins to be blocking, but go/no-go works for primary offerings because if they're not in place then 'no-go' does provide another opportunity (new RC).
What spins communities is when they need to test to get included in the next stage. Not sure what the best answer is, arguably the Jam TC-2 results for beta were too early on, but you can't know which TC or RC is going to be the last one. I'm unsure if there's always a RC, does TC ever go immediately gold? I think the options look like (in ascending order of testing burden): 1. Require any passing TC or RC test. 2. Require any passing RC test. 3. Require the last RC to be tested.
Or, one of those options plus keeping an eye on the compose success.
On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 13:58:21 +0000, Ian Malone ibmalone@gmail.com wrote:
- Require any passing TC or RC test.
- Require any passing RC test.
- Require the last RC to be tested.
Currently the requirement is any TC or RC. Though in theory it would be good to test each RC for regressions so there might be time to do another RC before gold declaration.
On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 06:56:57 -0500, Jaroslav Reznik jreznik@redhat.com wrote:
I'd say the Go/No-Go should be the break point to release/not to release as for primary offering. It could be a part of the Go/No-Go meeting to state release readiness of all deliverables we have (based on the sign offs or directly in the meeting?).
For consistancy and blame I think that is a good idea. Dennis shouldn't feel the heat for when screw ups result in a spin being dropped. Having it done at that point also keeps people from hoping for some float to get the sign off done.
Do we have anything as https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_20_Beta_RC5_Desktop for marking tests passed or just http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/20/Spins?
I don't think so.
I'm not going to comment what's written bellow, I think Dennis covered it pretty well. I'm sorry if I missed the spis process, I know it was happening and now I know it's enforced - so let's try to find the way how to put it into schedule, communicate it better. It's definitely worth having it, and I'd be more than happy to help with it!
This policy is change is something that should have been communicated to you, so there is blame to go around. I could have thought of doing that since I see enough to have been able to draw the conclusion that this is something that should have been on the spins schedule.
----- Original Message -----
On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 06:56:57 -0500, Jaroslav Reznik jreznik@redhat.com wrote:
I'd say the Go/No-Go should be the break point to release/not to release as for primary offering. It could be a part of the Go/No-Go meeting to state release readiness of all deliverables we have (based on the sign offs or directly in the meeting?).
For consistancy and blame I think that is a good idea. Dennis shouldn't feel the heat for when screw ups result in a spin being dropped. Having it done at that point also keeps people from hoping for some float to get the sign off done.
Do we have anything as https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_20_Beta_RC5_Desktop for marking tests passed or just http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/20/Spins?
I don't think so.
I'm not going to comment what's written bellow, I think Dennis covered it pretty well. I'm sorry if I missed the spis process, I know it was happening and now I know it's enforced - so let's try to find the way how to put it into schedule, communicate it better. It's definitely worth having it, and I'd be more than happy to help with it!
This policy is change is something that should have been communicated to you, so there is blame to go around. I could have thought of doing that since I see enough to have been able to draw the conclusion that this is something that should have been on the spins schedule.
Current spins schedule is at [1], is the rest of tasks still valid? I'm going to add sign off there too.
Jaroslav
[1] http://fedorapeople.org/groups/schedule/f-20/f-20-spins-tasks.html
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
El Tue, 12 Nov 2013 04:49:05 -0500 (EST) Jaroslav Reznik jreznik@redhat.com escribió:
----- Original Message -----
On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 06:56:57 -0500, Jaroslav Reznik jreznik@redhat.com wrote:
I'd say the Go/No-Go should be the break point to release/not to release as for primary offering. It could be a part of the Go/No-Go meeting to state release readiness of all deliverables we have (based on the sign offs or directly in the meeting?).
For consistancy and blame I think that is a good idea. Dennis shouldn't feel the heat for when screw ups result in a spin being dropped. Having it done at that point also keeps people from hoping for some float to get the sign off done.
Do we have anything as https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_20_Beta_RC5_Desktop for marking tests passed or just http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/20/Spins?
I don't think so.
I'm not going to comment what's written bellow, I think Dennis covered it pretty well. I'm sorry if I missed the spis process, I know it was happening and now I know it's enforced - so let's try to find the way how to put it into schedule, communicate it better. It's definitely worth having it, and I'd be more than happy to help with it!
This policy is change is something that should have been communicated to you, so there is blame to go around. I could have thought of doing that since I see enough to have been able to draw the conclusion that this is something that should have been on the spins schedule.
Current spins schedule is at [1], is the rest of tasks still valid? I'm going to add sign off there too.
Jaroslav
[1] http://fedorapeople.org/groups/schedule/f-20/f-20-spins-tasks.html
as the Spins are non release blocking i feel the testing and sign off should happen before QA requests RC1. from RC1 on it may be impossible to get a fix in.
Dennis
----- Original Message -----
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
El Tue, 12 Nov 2013 04:49:05 -0500 (EST) Jaroslav Reznik jreznik@redhat.com escribió:
----- Original Message -----
On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 06:56:57 -0500, Jaroslav Reznik jreznik@redhat.com wrote:
I'd say the Go/No-Go should be the break point to release/not to release as for primary offering. It could be a part of the Go/No-Go meeting to state release readiness of all deliverables we have (based on the sign offs or directly in the meeting?).
For consistancy and blame I think that is a good idea. Dennis shouldn't feel the heat for when screw ups result in a spin being dropped. Having it done at that point also keeps people from hoping for some float to get the sign off done.
Do we have anything as https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_20_Beta_RC5_Desktop for marking tests passed or just http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/20/Spins?
I don't think so.
I'm not going to comment what's written bellow, I think Dennis covered it pretty well. I'm sorry if I missed the spis process, I know it was happening and now I know it's enforced - so let's try to find the way how to put it into schedule, communicate it better. It's definitely worth having it, and I'd be more than happy to help with it!
This policy is change is something that should have been communicated to you, so there is blame to go around. I could have thought of doing that since I see enough to have been able to draw the conclusion that this is something that should have been on the spins schedule.
Current spins schedule is at [1], is the rest of tasks still valid? I'm going to add sign off there too.
Jaroslav
[1] http://fedorapeople.org/groups/schedule/f-20/f-20-spins-tasks.html
as the Spins are non release blocking i feel the testing and sign off should happen before QA requests RC1. from RC1 on it may be impossible to get a fix in.
That's a good point, for other desktops than blocking, potentially blocking issues are considered as automatic FE but it does not mean fix will be pulled in.
In schedule, we don't have specific date to request RC as it's based on the current state of accepted blocker bugs (RC is blockers free). First TC milestone is probably too early. Usually we don't have RC week before first Go/No-Go so it could be an option. Or Change Deadline (with early TC, there should be something testable and usable).
Spins guys, any thoughts?
Jaroslav
Dennis -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)
iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJSgkMkAAoJEH7ltONmPFDRJx8P/2JlcH3lHHBpKzzBoqSXbMqU rzcrYZSbeRnvu6PFXpwz0x7wxwpb/s9kurzjAHByzYDpuhRb0Mqn1Ydtpkrcce5Z bR89wJw6+hXxNrgza9lrXx/0zDP+w/r1fCfAMdBqLqOjpFmhdW607O3CrvLYjkBS sNbm3fANsnUfTr+05UP7FpQ+kWPYIgUvMDQ082XOFUl6Ob/Pl7Yob1rqIpvcveYM w/wtF0qNHR1Ct+L5NVeeOLz/vbIxcU/UdXmSXIUpgDFdkEXRCm3N7+yITK2M9dfr 5jzfdK/kCwpTZmOvevfsYXBlo4HdDZkEl6XCSNkZG799+sb0lq4cGKiOJ/TP3rOf SiD/EEBTvGakE3VB5FIqLpBGLF4HWiNGAdjZaRVl24ZvMZAskzIkFyZE2mV2x7FF BcP4539fp8ppDeFdKNkdc8ZxU4c92N4c3QCpc2mU55cVouF0Mkpp10nO60Vwu2no NYl9XrXgRzXCXZkCduv2T91Pf+8qzOTpFv3saIRn6sruBYSP+mAhzRN5R+fnAZ4V BOG520hmPZhGQXNC5eyQxJrdjH/TYBU0EBFf/0WySJJfefFm+rA/IejjHRbRUnVz yvRP/j6Wx09TVa4VEN+2qXSdDrpYKftwnyVSoNR4/tkzRiLr2XF6uiHViZuFGmjX Yp4UsWl3Kj3t7fgUChtY =3+KK -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ spins mailing list spins@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/spins
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 10:11:19 -0500, Jaroslav Reznik jreznik@redhat.com wrote:
Spins guys, any thoughts?
Well I think the sign off should be due before the Go / No-Go meeting. (Probably should be the day before in the schedule.) However, I think there needs to be a big notice that if there is a problem with an RC that affects a non-blocking spin, there is no guaranty that another RC will be done to fix the issue. So it is best practice to be checking each TC and RC to avoid getting burnt by regressions.
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 10:11:19 -0500, Jaroslav Reznik jreznik@redhat.com wrote:
Spins guys, any thoughts?
Are you definitely going to add enumerating qualifying spins in the Go / No-Go meeting after Gold is declared? I think that is a good idea.
----- Original Message -----
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 10:11:19 -0500, Jaroslav Reznik jreznik@redhat.com wrote:
Spins guys, any thoughts?
Are you definitely going to add enumerating qualifying spins in the Go / No-Go meeting after Gold is declared? I think that is a good idea.
Thinking about it, I'd prefer Readiness meeting as better suitable for this task.
Jaroslav
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 05:03:20 -0500, Jaroslav Reznik jreznik@redhat.com wrote:
----- Original Message -----
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 10:11:19 -0500, Jaroslav Reznik jreznik@redhat.com wrote:
Spins guys, any thoughts?
Are you definitely going to add enumerating qualifying spins in the Go / No-Go meeting after Gold is declared? I think that is a good idea.
Thinking about it, I'd prefer Readiness meeting as better suitable for this task.
Does that work for slips? I thought the readiness meeting wasn't repeated when there is a slip.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
El Tue, 12 Nov 2013 10:11:19 -0500 (EST) Jaroslav Reznik jreznik@redhat.com escribió:
----- Original Message -----
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
El Tue, 12 Nov 2013 04:49:05 -0500 (EST) Jaroslav Reznik jreznik@redhat.com escribió:
----- Original Message -----
On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 06:56:57 -0500, Jaroslav Reznik jreznik@redhat.com wrote:
I'd say the Go/No-Go should be the break point to release/not to release as for primary offering. It could be a part of the Go/No-Go meeting to state release readiness of all deliverables we have (based on the sign offs or directly in the meeting?).
For consistancy and blame I think that is a good idea. Dennis shouldn't feel the heat for when screw ups result in a spin being dropped. Having it done at that point also keeps people from hoping for some float to get the sign off done.
Do we have anything as https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_20_Beta_RC5_Desktop for marking tests passed or just http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/20/Spins?
I don't think so.
I'm not going to comment what's written bellow, I think Dennis covered it pretty well. I'm sorry if I missed the spis process, I know it was happening and now I know it's enforced
- so let's try to find the way how to put it into schedule,
communicate it better. It's definitely worth having it, and I'd be more than happy to help with it!
This policy is change is something that should have been communicated to you, so there is blame to go around. I could have thought of doing that since I see enough to have been able to draw the conclusion that this is something that should have been on the spins schedule.
Current spins schedule is at [1], is the rest of tasks still valid? I'm going to add sign off there too.
Jaroslav
[1] http://fedorapeople.org/groups/schedule/f-20/f-20-spins-tasks.html
as the Spins are non release blocking i feel the testing and sign off should happen before QA requests RC1. from RC1 on it may be impossible to get a fix in.
That's a good point, for other desktops than blocking, potentially blocking issues are considered as automatic FE but it does not mean fix will be pulled in.
In schedule, we don't have specific date to request RC as it's based on the current state of accepted blocker bugs (RC is blockers free). First TC milestone is probably too early. Usually we don't have RC week before first Go/No-Go so it could be an option. Or Change Deadline (with early TC, there should be something testable and usable).
Spins guys, any thoughts?
I think that sign off should be before Change Deadline without a clear RC day, at that point there may be another TC if we still have blockers, but RC should be imminent. it gives about as much time as possible. Spins really need to be tested and made sure they work for TC's as that's when its easiest to get fixes in. Once RC1 is requested there is no guarantee there will be another RC request. I think once or twice we have shipped RC1.
Dennis
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 04:49:05 -0500, Jaroslav Reznik jreznik@redhat.com wrote:
Current spins schedule is at [1], is the rest of tasks still valid? I'm going to add sign off there too.
Jaroslav
[1] http://fedorapeople.org/groups/schedule/f-20/f-20-spins-tasks.html
I am not sure all of the early stuff is really happening. No one is looking that closely.
I still to new spin-kickstart packages around alpha and beta, but since concern for those making in the release instead of a zero day update doesn't seem to be there, I think those two should be moved a week later relative to alpha and beta releases.
For final, I believe we do want to match, so we do want the earlier build attempt, but we may need to do new builds if there is a change. The build process for that package is a bit simpler now so it is pretty easy for Adam to do an update between RCs if it is needed.
On 10.11.2013 00:26, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
2. Did you send out reminders to the spin owners directly?Do you have a up to date list of them? I looked a few months ago and on some of them I couldn't figure it out at all. I was hoping perhaps strangely that there would be a list all of them would be on... like this one?
/me wonders why it worked, that the spins in question signed them off formally in this wikipage shortly after the announcement?
And of course it tested - Fabian made commits 4 days back because of tests we made ...
i think the lesson is learned already better communication next time - and now lets see to get them back into the F20 branch.
cu Joerg
Am Freitag, den 08.11.2013, 19:09 -0600 schrieb Dennis Gilmore:
Hi All,
As Design Suite, Games and Security Spins were not signed off[1] for Beta they have been removed from F20. They will need to reapply for inclusion in F21.
You pinged me on IRC for LXDE and Xfce. Did you reach out to the maintainers of these spins in any way?
Best regards, Christoph
On 09.11.2013 02:09, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
Hi All,
As Design Suite, Games and Security Spins were not signed off[1] for Beta they have been removed from F20. They will need to reapply for inclusion in F21.
can you please explain that for me - i know that especially Fabian invested a lot time recently for getting the Fedora Security Spin working for F20? Was there a reminder for that requirement or communication? And if i look at the link you posted i see that FSL is signed off on that page. Does it mean we have to go through all of the approval process again - just we missed because of communication flaws?
cu Joerg
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
El Sat, 09 Nov 2013 15:21:35 +0100 Joerg Simon jsimon@fedoraproject.org escribió:
On 09.11.2013 02:09, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
Hi All,
As Design Suite, Games and Security Spins were not signed off[1] for Beta they have been removed from F20. They will need to reapply for inclusion in F21.
can you please explain that for me - i know that especially Fabian invested a lot time recently for getting the Fedora Security Spin working for F20? Was there a reminder for that requirement or communication? And if i look at the link you posted i see that FSL is signed off on that page. Does it mean we have to go through all of the approval process again - just we missed because of communication flaws?
we changed the process in f20 its outlined https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2013-August/188004.html
it was discussed both on this list and devel.
Dennis
we changed the process in f20 its outlined https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2013-August/188004.html
it was discussed both on this list and devel.
It would be nice if the documentation included a relative date as to when the sign off is due. (For example before the spins are declared gold.)
It looks like the process allows spins that missed beta to get back in for final if we file a releng ticket. Is that correct?
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2013-August/188004.html
Did that proposal get posted on the wiki somewhere? If not, I'll do it. Is there any place other than the Spins SIG page that should link to it?
On 09/11/13 06:40 AM, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
we changed the process in f20 its outlined https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2013-August/188004.html
it was discussed both on this list and devel.
Dennis
According to the post: "If the image fails or there are no test results, the spin is not shipped with Final."
In my case, Design Suite was already signed off in Alpha. The beta version was very uneventful considering its bound to Gnome-Shell and I was about to sign off this weekend. My concern is the lack of reminder and it would be a shame to postpone a ready spin due to miscommunication.
On 9 November 2013 18:15, Luya Tshimbalanga luya@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On 09/11/13 06:40 AM, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
we changed the process in f20 its outlined https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2013-August/188004.html
it was discussed both on this list and devel.
Dennis
According to the post: "If the image fails or there are no test results, the spin is not shipped with Final."
In my case, Design Suite was already signed off in Alpha. The beta version was very uneventful considering its bound to Gnome-Shell and I was about to sign off this weekend. My concern is the lack of reminder and it would be a shame to postpone a ready spin due to miscommunication.
Possibly the process needs a bit of revision. For the Jam spin we tested RCs for both alpha and beta about halfway through the process for both. However a change caused the compose to start failing during the cycle of beta RCs. It was spotted and Brendan fixed it quite quickly, but none of the testing on the spin could pick up that this would happen and we only spotted it by luck basically. Either outcome if it had been missed would have been unfortunate: either passed as okay simply because it was on the test wall or dropped because no-one who could do anything about it knew it wasn't composing. It seems the design spin on the other hand got unlucky.
On 09/11/13 10:29 AM, Ian Malone wrote:
Possibly the process needs a bit of revision. For the Jam spin we tested RCs for both alpha and beta about halfway through the process for both. However a change caused the compose to start failing during the cycle of beta RCs. It was spotted and Brendan fixed it quite quickly, but none of the testing on the spin could pick up that this would happen and we only spotted it by luck basically. Either outcome if it had been missed would have been unfortunate: either passed as okay simply because it was on the test wall or dropped because no-one who could do anything about it knew it wasn't composing. It seems the design spin on the other hand got unlucky.
I thoroughly run every TC of Design Suite using both Virtualizer and USB. For the rare time, it was really boring with successful composing, I was about to declare ready but timely announcement occurred before I got the chance to update the status. I will adopt your approach to avoid such confusion in a near future.
Luya
Hi guys,
It seems that I missed to update Fedora 29 Release Spins page. The Security Lab was tested [2] during the cycle but not shipped for F29 because I didn't signed off.
Ok, can happen but it pretty much seems that history is repeating itself.
The bigger issue now is the nightly composes are missing (last build: 2018-09-19). Looks like that one removed the Security Lab from all build processes.
Last time it was pretty hard to get the builds for the current release. This time I will focus on the next release but it would be nice to have the nightly builds back.
Thanks
Kind regards,
Fabian
[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/29/Spins [2] https://www.happyassassin.net/testcase_stats/29/Security_Lab.html [3] https://www.happyassassin.net/nightlies.html
On 11/11/18 5:49 AM, Fabian Affolter wrote:
Hi guys,
It seems that I missed to update Fedora 29 Release Spins page. The Security Lab was tested [2] during the cycle but not shipped for F29 because I didn't signed off.
Ok, can happen but it pretty much seems that history is repeating itself.
The bigger issue now is the nightly composes are missing (last build: 2018-09-19). Looks like that one removed the Security Lab from all build processes.
Last time it was pretty hard to get the builds for the current release. This time I will focus on the next release but it would be nice to have the nightly builds back.
The builds have been failing.
If you go to:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/tasks?state=failed&owner=releng&...
and search for the security spin:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=30794397
The x86_64 one: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=30794462
The root.log: https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/4462/30794462/root.log
... DEBUG util.py:439: 2018-11-11 09:36:32,760: Starting package installation process DEBUG util.py:439: 2018-11-11 09:36:32,760: DEBUG util.py:439: 2018-11-11 09:36:32,760: The installation was stopped due to an error which occurred while running in non-interactive cmdline mode. Since there cannot be any questions in cmdline mode, edit your kickstart file and retry installation. DEBUG util.py:439: 2018-11-11 09:36:32,760: The exact error message is: DEBUG util.py:439: 2018-11-11 09:36:32,760: DEBUG util.py:439: 2018-11-11 09:36:32,761: Non interactive installation failed: DEBUG util.py:439: 2018-11-11 09:36:32,761: Problem 1: conflicting requests DEBUG util.py:439: 2018-11-11 09:36:32,761: - nothing provides libopenscap.so.8()(64bit) needed by scap-workbench-1.2.0-1.fc29.x86_64 DEBUG util.py:439: 2018-11-11 09:36:32,761: Problem 2: package yum-utils-1.1.31-518.fc30.noarch requires yum >= 3.4.3-148, but none of the providers can be installed DEBUG util.py:439: 2018-11-11 09:36:32,761: - package dnf-yum-4.0.4-2.fc30.noarch conflicts with yum provided by yum-3.4.3-518.fc29.noarch DEBUG util.py:439: 2018-11-11 09:36:32,761: - conflicting requests. DEBUG util.py:439: 2018-11-11 09:36:32,761:
So, the problem is scap-workbench has a dep problem, and you have yum-utils in the comps group for security-lab, but yum-utils is python2 and been depreciated in rawhide.
Fix those and they will appear again. :)
kevin
-
Bruno Wolff III -
Christoph Wickert -
Dennis Gilmore -
Dennis Gilmore -
Fabian Affolter -
Ian Malone -
Jaroslav Reznik -
Joerg Simon -
Kevin Fenzi -
Luya Tshimbalanga