On Sun, Nov 17, 2024 at 10:12:58AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Sun, 2024-11-17 at 18:35 +0100, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: > > Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: > > > PS: I suspect the documentation was actually just an attempt to document > > > the previous broken Bodhi policy implementation. (See > > > https://github.com/fedora-infra/bodhi/issues/772 and > > > https://github.com/fedora-infra/bodhi/issues/1033 – both got closed, but > > > the issue was never properly fixed.) > > > > PPS: Sorry, one more thing, I have to correct myself: > > > > Actually, the issue was eventually fixed in that Bodhi has at some point > > started allowing to set the stable threshold even when unchecking the > > autopush checkbox, so it was possible before 8.2 to manually push updates to > > stable at +1. > > > Though I still do not understand how a threshold makes any sense at all for > > manual pushes. Manual pushes should just always require only the minimum > > required by policy, as the person setting the threshold (to any allowed > > value) is the same as the one doing the push. > > > > Settable thresholds have only ever made sense for automatic pushes. (So the > > bug was not that the threshold was not settable for manual pushes, but that > > the non-settable threshold was fixed to the wrong value, the default for > > automatic pushes (+3) instead of the minimum allowed (+1). Which is why I > > still do not consider this properly fixed.) > > Yes, to be clear, in rewriting this code, I had the same opinion as > you. The configurable thresholds only make sense as applying to > autopush. There is no reason I can see to consider them as applying to > manual push. Agreed. > That is in fact an interesting question, now I dig into it. Zbigniew > seems to have done substantial rewrites on the karma requirements in > 2021. These were: > > https://pagure.io/fesco/fesco-docs/c/e57f002ee55810d1636e4460fe0d2c3515897c0b?branch=main > https://pagure.io/fesco/fesco-docs/c/19bf26cef5d5e2a8d744ea28d8d54ec5374112e9?branch=main > https://pagure.io/fesco/fesco-docs/c/33c510e462f0b4118a716a89315f6afef6f5354c?branch=main [snip] > So on the whole, I think you have a good point here, thanks for raising > it. I will file a FESCo ticket and ask for them to consider the history > here and decide if they want to make any changes based on this > evaluation. > > I think the current policy is written in a much more sensible and > clearer form than the old one was, but the actual changes to the > requirements that happened along the way may have been unintentional. Yeah, the semantic changes to the policy text were either unintended or were introduced to match what Bodhi actually implemented. If there is something that the policy text says that is stronger than what Bodhi requires, then we should update the policy text immediately. For cases where the policy text and Bodhi agree, but are unnecessarilly strict, let's change both at the same time. The old state where the docs and code disagree was the least desirable. Zbyszek -- _______________________________________________ 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 Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
