Proposed udpates policy change
Matthew Garrett
mjg59 at srcf.ucam.org
Mon Mar 8 23:17:04 UTC 2010
On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 11:27:04PM +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Mar 2010 21:59:29 +0000, Matthew wrote:
> > 1) Updates to stable that result in any reduction of functionality to
> > the user are unacceptable.
>
> Unless the fixes contained within an update are _more important_ than a
> dropped feature.
>
> E.g. if upstream has removed some "functionality" deliberately, and
> upgrading to upstream's code is the only way to move forward.
In that kind of situation, I think the maintainer would need a very good
reason to push this to a stable release. We've arguably been there with
Thunderbird, and we saw how much trouble that caused.
> > It is the expectation of Fesco that the majority of updates should
> > easily be able to garner the necessary karma in a minimal space of time.
>
> Your wording or FESCo's?
My wording, to be voted on by Fesco.
> In either case, I disapprove this strongly. I have failed to get bodhi
> karma from bug reporters multiple times before. It is beyond my time
> to pester bug reporters, so they would vote inside bodhi instead of
> simply adding a comment in bugzilla. In many cases (ABRT generated
> tickets), I cannot even get them to reply in bugzilla. I release
> updates in return to
> - problem reports found in non-Fedora places,
> - crap I see in daily diffs I create for upstream projects,
> - problems I find myself, which haven't reported by anyone else but
> likely affect other users.
> I don't want such updates to be held up by artificial hurdles.
As I've said elsewhere, this is a problem that needs solving. But I
don't believe that it's a problem that's best solved by allowing people
to push directly to stable.
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59 at srcf.ucam.org
More information about the devel
mailing list