On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 05:56:31PM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote: > On 22. 01. 21 15:43, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > > > I tried to explain this at the meeting, but I guess I was too terse. > > > > > > > > First, let me say that I (and I am pretty sure everyone involved) was > > > > unaware of the rpm bug. I hope Patrick will chime in, by my > > > > understanding is that rpm specs said they changed this to 64MB, but the > > > > commit involved only changed it to 64k.:( > > > > > > > > This is unfortunate and I am sorry it happened. > > > > > > > > We don't currently have a signing setup in staging that allows testing > > > > this, and wanting to make sure everything worked we put it in place. > > > > I did not know that it would cause this issue or I would not have > > > > allowed it to be deployed. On the other hand, we now know about this > > > > issue instead of learning about it after the mass rebuild is over. > > Sorry, but I disagree with the evaluation that this is OK. > > > > It seems fairly obvious to me that nobody knew about the bug, and it > > wouldn't have been enabled if the bug was discovered beforehand. But > > even with the absence of known bugs, for complicated changes like > > this, there is always a risk of bugs and the potential to disrupt > > other people's work. It is better to assume that there will be bugs. > > > > The official package build system is not CI for unapproved projects. > > Yes, at some point we need to flip the switch and enable the new thing, > > but this should be done*after* being agreed on and announced, not > > before, and not silently. > > I think it would be much better to say: "Hey, we know this has not been > approved yet, but we really need to test in production, so we'll enable this > at <time> for a coupe hours and see the impact" instead of just doing it. Sure, in retrospect seems reasonable. Of course we can't really do this for all upgrades, changes, etc... There's tons of changes that just get made to support things that aren't approved as a change, etc. > > I don't want to blame anybody here, worse things happen without approval all > the time. But please let's not pat ourselves on the back about this and > let's not make this a good thing just because it turned out well. Agreed. I think we should try and be more carefull and also try and get cycles to get our staging env more fully setup. kevin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
