New bodhi release in production

[Jesse Keating]

New packages can break existing systems. Leak ram, eat filesystems, leak personal data, leak root, dos a system, etc...
-- 
Sent from my Android phone. Please excuse my brevity, lack of trimming, and top posting.

"Martin Sourada" <martin.sourada at gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 2010-08-14 at 19:14 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote: 
>> Martin Sourada wrote:
>> > Seeing your mail, you more or less agree with this. So why exactly are
>> > you against the policy explicitly requiring either positive karma or
>> > some minimal time in testing (setting aside some current shrotcommings
>> > of the implementation like resetting the timer on bug update when you
>> > just add/remove fixed bug or edit update comment)?
>> 
>> There are changes needing a lot (2+ weeks) of testing (e.g. upstream minor 
>> feature releases, such as Qt 4.n+1). There are changes needing some (~1 
>> week, at most 2, of) testing (e.g. upstream bugfix releases / point 
>> releases). There are changes needing no testing (e.g. trivial one-line fixes 
>> for a regression in a previous update which need to go out ASAP to fix the 
>> regression). The maintainer is best qualified to know which applies. The 
>> maintainer is also much better at judging the quality of his updates than 
>> some semi-arbitrary number computed out of tester feedback ("karma"). (He 
>> knows what he changed, he has access to feedback from other places, e.g. 
>> Bugzilla, IRC, mailing lists, upstream's bug tracker, other distros' bug 
>> trackers, anonymous Bodhi feedback not counted towards karma etc. – all 
>> places which can confirm a single patch to fix a reported issue –, he has 
>> experience from previous updates, and he is able to make an educated 
>> judgement call based on all that information.) We are very far from software 
>> being more intelligent than people, so we should let people decide, not 
>> software. And the people should be able to decide on a case by case basis, 
>> not some inflexible bureaucratic policy (which is so dumb that it can even 
>> be enforced by software).
>> 
>Hrm, I see that software as means to gain feedback for my updates --
>noone can be 100% sure his changes are bugfree, otherwise we would have
>bugfree software. In the ideal case scenario (which we are far from)
>this would be used to catch the regression *before* making that update
>stable in the first place. Testers are also giving reasons why they put
>-1 karma if they did so. IMHO each change requires at least minimal
>testing (and yes, finding at least +1 karma point for one line fix
>should not be very hard).
>
>The only thing I don't understand completely (but can accept without
>complaining nevertheless) is why this applies to *new* packages as well
>-- they didn't existed in repos before and anything is better than
>nothing...
>
>Martin
>-- 
>devel mailing list
>devel at lists.fedoraproject.org
>https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel