FESCo wants to ban direct stable pushes in Bodhi (urgent call for feedback)
opensource at till.name
Fri Feb 26 13:49:18 UTC 2010
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 08:36:41AM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 02:23:33PM +0100, Till Maas wrote:
> >On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 01:16:43PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> >> I would like to collect feedback on this issue. If you want to disable
> >> direct stable pushes, why? Could there be a less radical solution to that
> >> problem (e.g. a policy discouraging direct stable pushes for some specific
> >> types of changes rather than a blanket ban)? On the other hand, if (like me)
> >> you DON'T want that feature to go away, please provide valid use cases.
> >Imho it takes too long to get packages into updates-testing, if people
> >are really interested in testing packages, they often seem to get
> >packages directly from Koji, e.g. on this update I got 3 positive Karma
> >points (one of them was anonymous) within 76 minutes after submitting
> >the update:
> >It did not seem very useful to delay this update that also fixed several
> >very annoying bugs any further.
> You've just illustrated the bodhi process working AS IT IS SUPPOSED TO. You
> had testers giving karma, and they all had positive feedback, which means that
> THE PACKAGE WAS TESTED BEFORE IT WENT TO STABLE.
Imho it is more a perversion of how it is meant to be. This package was
tested before it went to updates-testing and therefore went straight to
stable. But the majority of packages goes to updates-testing and is not
tested by someone else but the maintainer/does not get any karma, but
still is pushed to stable after some time.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20100226/5ca46c9f/attachment.bin
More information about the devel