AutoQA: distro congestion?

[Axel Thimm]

On Tue, 2011-04-19 at 11:05 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> You've tried to select "stable" as the target already when submitting
> the updates, and bodhi rejected that. With the CVEs mentioned for Mediawiki,
> why didn't you choose "security" instead of "stable"?

But I did. All packages are marked as "security updates" in their
"type". As a target ("request") you only have the choice "testing" or
"stable" (and "none"). There isn't any from that mentions "security" and
"stable".

E.g. the packages are marked as security updates and whatever the cause,
autoqa, missing karma, missing time, for some reason (partly undisclosed
as mentioned in my post yesterday) bodhi rejects them. IMO if the
packager marks the package as as security update bodhi should stay out
of the way and allow a human to decide on pushing the update or not. ATM
bodhi cuts me off the pushers.
-- 
http://thimm.gr/ - http://ATrpms.net/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20110420/ad69faf7/attachment-0001.bin