FESCo wants to ban direct stable pushes in Bodhi (urgent call for feedback)

Till Maas 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:
> >https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F12/FEDORA-2010-0604
> >
> >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

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
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20100226/5ca46c9f/attachment.bin 

More information about the devel mailing list