Proposed udpates policy change
a.badger at gmail.com
Tue Mar 9 15:26:48 UTC 2010
On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 11:41:44PM -0500, Jon Masters wrote:
> I believe that this is possibly too limited. Aside from the obvious
> abuse potential (which will always exist no matter what happens) -
> obviously someone could just hate the process and decide to have a
> couple of others sign off on everything no matter what - I think it
> should be necessary to have a cooling off period between pushing an
> update, it being voted on, and it going out live. It doesn't have to be
> weeks, but it should be long enough for the person who actually reported
> some bug to test that it is fixed and for others who aren't able to
> devote time every day to see the update. I suggest 3-5 days.
Note -- in the policy as written, there's no possibility of abuse because
there's no definition of what karma +1/-1 means.
In a different thread someone asked whether we wanted people to simply +1/-1
if the update installed.
In another thread, adamw said that QA's bar for acceptance is very low (he
had some examples but I'd rather he speak up than I go try to find it in the
mailing list archives :-).
This needs to be rectified as well.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20100309/6d0a7d81/attachment.bin
More information about the devel