FESCo wants to ban direct stable pushes in Bodhi (urgent call for feedback)
kevin.kofler at chello.at
Fri Feb 26 14:59:43 UTC 2010
Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
> Another annoying issue is updates with no explanations. There is a
> "Notes" field in bodhi that many people just ignore for an unknown
> reason. Any update with less than a specified number of characters
> (~40) in the Notes should also be banned.
That's a completely unrelated issue!
I actually sorta agree with you on this point (though enforcing 40 chars
minimum is unlikely to help, it'll just lead to folks filling in crap like
"update foo to the latest upstream version", we're already seeing useless
"information" like that), but this has absolutely nothing to do with direct
> I can't see a reason to make exceptions.
What about the many valid reasons that have been brought up? E.g. if a
package is destroying people's hardware, wouldn't you want the fix to go out
BEFORE your hardware is dead?
> If people used the testing repo appropriately, things would actually get
I don't think it's the maintainers' fault that testing is insufficient, but
rather that there are just not enough testers.
> I wish there was a solution without some sort of banning, but apparently,
> there is not.
Policies? Banning only those folks who don't follow policies from direct
stable pushes (or even from Bodhi entirely, or even all of Fedora)? Why
punish those who work really hard to make things work for everyone and who
will now have their perfectly fine and safe fixes delayed for purely
> Any change needs testing. Even one liners.
I'm not convinced. Some changes are really trivial.
And direct stable pushes are usually tested by at least one person before
they're queued directly to stable anyway. For a one-line fix, that's usually
more than enough (and when it's not, the maintainer knows why, e.g. if that
one line enabled a 10000-line feature).
More information about the devel