[maemo-community] Blocked Fremantle packages to promote [was: Re: Maemo Elections - Extended]

Tue Apr 3 13:36:23 EEST 2012

Hi Timo, thanks to volunteer as a Supertester. I think Rob (SD69) could
grant you Tester permissions without the need to involve any nokians.

Regarding your comments, please see above.

Regards

2012/4/3 Timo Härkönen <timop.harkonen at gmail.com>

> Hi
>
> 3. huhtikuuta 2012 11.31 Iván Gálvez Junquera <ivgalvez at gmail.com>kirjoitti:
>
> Hi,
>>
>> The Supertester initiative is discussed in the testing-squad mailing list
>> and also at TMO.
>>
>> Anyway, I'll repost the summary here for those not subscribed to that
>> mailing list:
>>
>
>
> Thanks for this
>
>
>>
>> *
>> Rationale:*
>> Lack of testers and maintainers for applications has derived in a lot of
>> applications getting stuck at Extras Testing  even if they are suitable for
>> promotion.
>>
>> We have even reach a situation in which most applications are not even
>> promoted by their developers to Testing (from Devel) due to the difficulty
>> to promote to Extras. The whole promotion system is perceived as useless.
>>
>
> For some extend I agree. Anyway, I'm holding back something in devel for a
> simple reason because I think the package isn't ready for testing, etc.
> Hopefully I'm not the only one holding back because of this reason. Anyway,
> I personally woudn't remove the testing gate for applications. People who
> don't mind the rough edges, broken package scripts, reflashing, etc. have
> already enabled devel and this is a no issue for them. When a package is in
> the extras I'd expect it to be stable (YMMV). If promoting is made easier
> also there needs to be easy machanism to remove broken stuff from extras
> since the easy promotions will lead to more broken stuff getting through.
>

The idea is not to promote directly from Devel to Testing in any way.
Packages should have to pass quarantine and get votes in testing to be
promoted as always.

Indeed a mechanism to remove broken packages is also needed and asked for.
We have currently some cases of broken packages that should be removed or
at least downgraded due to different reasons and right now, there is no one
in the community able to do so apart from the original maintainer.

> Other than that, I though we already had a supertester system in place
> where a package needs less votes from supertesters that from regular
> testers to be able to be promoted? Why isn't that good enough? The thing
> needed is people to do something instread of whining. To put my money where
> my mouth is, I am volunteering myself as a supertester. I think I have some
> merit to be able to act as one since my day job is doing software QA
> (tools), have a background in Maemo/MeeGo QA and I am involved in Mer's QA
> automation effort. Please note that I take quality seriously and will not
> settle for "good enough". Also will not be available 24/7. I will have time
> to work on this a couple of hours a week.
>

OK, number of votes could be kept, at least if we have enough people
contributing, but the Council should be able to change that if needed.

>
>
>>
>> *Solution:*
>> Considering that Maemo community is shrinking, we cannot continue with
>> the actual process. We need to both fix some issues in the whole process of
>> promotion and also grant more administrative privileges to Supertesters.
>>
>>
> IMO the process is pretty good as it is if it's still working as
> documented here: http://wiki.maemo.org/Extras-testing#Promotion dunno if
> the 3 votes needed from supertesters is implemented or not. Could someone
> comment on it?
>

>
>> *New members proposed as Supertesters:*
>> These people have been suggested to become new Supertesters:
>>
>> Demolition
>> vi_
>> ammyt
>> ivgalvez
>>
>> Please any one else interested in become a new Superster send an email to
>> this mailing list.
>>
>
>
> Look above :)
>

Please subscribe to  the testing-squad mailing list and nominate yourself,
I'm pretty sure Rob could include you soon.

>
>>
>> *Proposed changes for the promotion process:*
>> This should be the easiest part of the changes that we are proposing.
>> - Promotion of applications from Testing to Extras should be automatic
>> once the requirements are fulfilled. No need of maintainer to actively
>> promoting the application.
>> This will allow orphaned applications to be promoted.
>>
>
>
> So the automatic thing is not implemented yet? Who's responsible for that?
> Can anyone with the needed expertise contribute? Who to poke?
>

That's the big problem, we have been trying for a month now with the
administrators without success. I hope that now that Quim is the new
community manager he could help us with that.

>
>
>>
>> - Only one Supertester vote, enough to promote an application.
>>
>
> I'm saying no to this. One isn't enough. Needs at least two, I'd prefer
> three.
>

OK, let's see if can at least unblock the whole thing.

>
>
>> - Five User votes, enough to promote an application.
>>
>
> I'd keep this in 10. My reasoning: popular/hot packages - People don't
> actually test, they just want to see their facourite stuff promoted.
>

This is now implemented with 6 votes if I'm not wrong. You are right about
votes for popular packages but a Supertester should be able to block or
downgrade any crappy patches if needed.

>
>
>> We are running out of man power.
>>
>
> True. But that is no excuse to let quality matter any less.
>
>
>> All other criteria could be maintained as they are now.
>>
>> Proposed new permissions/abilities for Supertesters:
>> - Add a new developer to maintainer list of any package.
>>
>
> Just as a comment: This shouldn't be done lightly, the current maintainer
> should be contacted first with reasonable time to response. Also changes as
> this should be discussed publicly mailing list preferred before taking any
> action. Mailing list because the forum is very difficult to follow and
> asking there a question from a specific user isn't that effective..
>

Of course this process has to be polite to not offend anyone and I would
even recommend to do that twice, also on TMO (original announce thread of
the app or a new one if needed) and even PM if possible, but right now that
process seems to be very slow.

Regarding the changes in maintainer list, is that something doable by the
Council members? If so, then we could solve that having more active Council
members, without the need to grant permission also to Supertesters.

>
>> - Delete a package from the repository.
>> - Edit bugtracker link.
>> - Ability to promote a package not only from Testing to Extras but also
>> from Devel to Testing.
>>
>
> I disagree with this. This is clearly responsibility of the
> maintainer/developer.
>

But the problem here is that there are a lot of orphaned packages. If no
one volunteers to become a new maintainer, such simple actions could be
done by a Supertester.

- Deletion and downgrading of orphaned broken packages is needed right now.
If becoming maintainer to do that is required, and only the Council can
grant maintenance permissions, the whole process is extremely complicated.

- Edit the bugtracker link just to point people to a TMO thread in some
cases is pretty simple and would allow a lot of packages to be promoted.

- Promotion from Devel to Testing shouldn't be a normal situation. Only a
few applications are now unmaintained but stable enough for that. Again,
the question here is that the community members don't have administrative
permissions to fix almost anything.

>
>> - Ability to downgrade a package from Extras to Testing, and even to
>> Devel.
>>
>
> I'd think there's no need to demote to testing. If package needs to be
> removed from extras it clearly has no place in testing and devel should
> already have the some or newer version of it. So ability to remove stuff
> from extras is the only thing needed.
>

Right for demoting to Testing, but there could be broken applications that
at least should be available in Devel for those who want to experiment and
maybe there is no newer version for that.

>
>
>> - Ability to prevent automatic promotion of a package from Testing to
>> Extras (to avoid popular but potentially dangerous app to be promoted
>> automatically if reached the number of user votes needed).
>>
>
> Agreed. Already commented on the issue earlier.
>
>
>>
>> So we should try to keep IRC conversation on how to achieve those points
>> (already discussed at TMO).
>>
>
> What channel (and network) you're using?
>

None, as we haven't received any response.

>
> Thanks,
>
> -Timo
>
>
>>
>> Regards
>>
>>
>> 2012/4/3 Timo Härkönen <timop.harkonen at gmail.com>
>>
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> 3. huhtikuuta 2012 11.13 Iván Gálvez Junquera <ivgalvez at gmail.com>kirjoitti:
>>>
>>> Hi Andre,
>>>>
>>>> I have resend you the complete summary and the mailing list messages
>>>> regarding the Supertesters proposal. That proposal was first discussed at
>>>> TMO and once it was clear was moved to the appropriate mailing list. We
>>>> have been trying to contact Niels and Henry for a month now and haven't
>>>> received any response yet.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Why not keep the discussion on this list instead of private replies.
>>> There just might be people on this list who are also interested in it and
>>> could contribute..
>>>
>>>
>>> -Timo
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2012/4/3 Andre Klapper <andre_klapper at gmx.net>
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Rob,
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 2012-04-02 at 13:55 -0400, robert bauer wrote:
>>>>> > There is a thread on the testing squad ML
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> https://garage.maemo.org/pipermail/testingsquad-list/2012-March/thread.html
>>>>>
>>>>> > and also a "supertesters" thread on the forum.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://talk.maemo.org/showthread.php?t=82374
>>>>>
>>>>> > Please also contact ivgalvez if you can offer help or advice.
>>>>>
>>>>> You foreshadowed some issues in the quote below, I asked you to
>>>>> elaborate on them. I won't read through the threads that I just had to
>>>>> find myself, sorry - instead I expected you to summarize the issues, as
>>>>> you initially came up with that topic here.
>>>>>
>>>>> In general it seems like there is a communication issue. It's
>>>>> depressing
>>>>> to see such problems only made half-public by the council now, just
>>>>> before an election.
>>>>>
>>>>> My two cents,
>>>>> andre
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> > On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 12:56 PM, Andre Klapper <
>>>>> andre_klapper at gmx.net>
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>> >         On Mon, 2012-04-02 at 12:52 -0400, robert bauer wrote:
>>>>> >         > There are several reasons - the last reason for many of the
>>>>> >         developers
>>>>> >         > is that there are projects and software being developed
>>>>> >         which are
>>>>> >         > being hindered by the lack of cooperation we are getting
>>>>> >         from
>>>>> >         > Nokia/Nemein.  For example, we have a long list of
>>>>> fremantle
>>>>> >         packages
>>>>> >         > to be promoted and the blocker is Nokia/Nemein.  Extras
>>>>> >         downloads does
>>>>> >         > us little good if packages can't get into extras.  The
>>>>> >         problem is
>>>>> >         > serious - we can't even get replies to our emails.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >         Could you elaborate on this, if possible?
>>>>> >
>>>>> >         andre
>>>>> >
>>>>> >         --
>>>>> >         Andre Klapper (maemo.org bugmaster)
>>>>> >         http://blogs.gnome.org/aklapper/
>>>>> >
>>>>> >         _______________________________________________
>>>>> >         maemo-community mailing list
>>>>> >         maemo-community at maemo.org
>>>>> >         https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-community
>>>>> >
>>>>> > _______________________________________________
>>>>> > maemo-community mailing list
>>>>> > maemo-community at maemo.org
>>>>> > https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-community
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Andre Klapper (maemo.org bugmaster)
>>>>> http://blogs.gnome.org/aklapper/
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> maemo-community mailing list
>>>>> maemo-community at maemo.org
>>>>> https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-community
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Iván Gálvez Junquera
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> maemo-community mailing list
>>>> maemo-community at maemo.org
>>>> https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-community
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> maemo-community mailing list
>>> maemo-community at maemo.org
>>> https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-community
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Iván Gálvez Junquera
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> maemo-community mailing list
>> maemo-community at maemo.org
>> https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-community
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> maemo-community mailing list
> maemo-community at maemo.org
> https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-community
>
>

-- 
Iván Gálvez Junquera
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.maemo.org/pipermail/maemo-community/attachments/20120403/367d749f/attachment.htm>