Reply
Thread Tools
joerg_rw's Avatar
Posts: 2,222 | Thanked: 12,651 times | Joined on Mar 2010 @ SOL 3
#41
Originally Posted by Hurrian View Post
If a package in -devel doesn't move to extras even if a sufficient number of users (note, that was the point of the voting system in the first place) call it stable, what's the point?
Nope it's not the point of the voting system. It's not even a true voting system, it is a clearly described way to evaluate certain strictly defined quality conditions for a package. Those are to be read in http://wiki.maemo.org/Extras-testing/QA_Checklist.

Again, this thread been started by MT on behalf of a decision done by council publicly, based on an evaluation that's already finished. And it's clearly adviced to MT in the meeting where we decided about this that we shall ask a last time
if there are any technical concerns about removing *patch pkgs from extras and extras-testing repos
nothing else, nothing beyond, not whether or not it is a good idea, just technical concerns ((sidenote to estel: when we asked MT in last meeting about that topic, *he* pointed us to *this* thread, so I think it's absolutely fair to say that maybe MT has picked the wrong topic))

Thanks for staying on (real) topic.
The thread's topic >>Should Tech Staff and/or Council Remove Dangerous Packages From Extras and Extras-Testing?<< is bogus, since that's never been a question. We *must* remove those.

cheers
jOERG

ps: no, >>general consensus was to revisit exact rules about things forbidden in packages, and giving time for developers to fix it, then starting to take action.<< must been based on a last check some years ago or in some unrelated domain. Neither do rules need any revisiting (see above), nor has there been any known consensus to do that. And developers have explicitly announced that they won't fix anything, in this particular case we talk about here. Consesnus in the council meeeting deciding on it been that *patch will get removed from extras and extras-testing, and we just go here and ask a last time if we have missed out on some technical implications in this.
__________________
Maemo Community Council member [2012-10, 2013-05, 2013-11, 2014-06 terms]
Hildon Foundation Council inaugural member.
MCe.V. foundation member

EX Hildon Foundation approved
Maemo Administration Coordinator (stepped down due to bullying 2014-04-05)
aka "techstaff" - the guys who keep your infra running - Devotion to Duty http://xkcd.com/705/

IRC(freenode): DocScrutinizer*
First USB hostmode fanatic, father of H-E-N

Last edited by joerg_rw; 2013-04-02 at 18:42.
 

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to joerg_rw For This Useful Post:
joerg_rw's Avatar
Posts: 2,222 | Thanked: 12,651 times | Joined on Mar 2010 @ SOL 3
#42
Originally Posted by freemangordon View Post
No matter that (maybe) I am the most anti-crappatch person here, I have to unpleasantly agree with Estel - we should modify the rules for extras in such a way that maintainers to be given a chance to fix/withdraw broken packages from extras. Along with a definition of what is "fubar package in extras". And if they don't fix/withdraw them, there should be a procedure to be followed.

I think extras-testing should not be changed, IMO it is fine.
Nope, there are clear rules (http://wiki.maemo.org/Extras-testing/QA_Checklist) and testers are supposed to obey those. If testers fail and do a fake approval based on doing developer a favour, if then somebody like sixwheeledbeast comes up with a proper bug report (http://talk.maemo.org/showthread.php?p=1328060) and developer answers he can't fix the bugs (http://talk.maemo.org/showpost.php?p=1328130), when further the bug report clearly shows that there are critical issues with the package, then we don't need to publish new rules or anything, and we don't need to give developer another chance to react. What we must do is remove those packages from extras and extras-testing repositories. It has been discussed thoroughly and comprehensively on a public council meeting, and we decided upon it there. Now e're going to execute that decision. Time for discussions been before and during that meeting.

cheers
jOERG
[edit: just a footnote - I'm not a friend of spending weeks to set up rules for each niche case that shouldn't even happen if the already existing rules wouldve been followed. Rather allow those who care about stuff to handle things according to the particular case and trust in their common sense. We already spent hours to decide how to handle this particular case, and we discussed it with quite a number of community people in public, before we decided. I don't see the point in making that another ruleset, rather make sure we never again need to deal with a similar situation. I.E. review testing rules, who may test and how results of testers get handled]
__________________
Maemo Community Council member [2012-10, 2013-05, 2013-11, 2014-06 terms]
Hildon Foundation Council inaugural member.
MCe.V. foundation member

EX Hildon Foundation approved
Maemo Administration Coordinator (stepped down due to bullying 2014-04-05)
aka "techstaff" - the guys who keep your infra running - Devotion to Duty http://xkcd.com/705/

IRC(freenode): DocScrutinizer*
First USB hostmode fanatic, father of H-E-N

Last edited by joerg_rw; 2013-04-02 at 19:26.
 

The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to joerg_rw For This Useful Post:
Reply

Tags
community, dangerous, extras, harmful, repositories

Thread Tools

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 06:56.