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

Patrice Dumas pertusus at free.fr
Fri Feb 26 15:23:21 UTC 2010

On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 08:39:19AM -0600, Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Patrice Dumas <pertusus at free.fr> said:
> > On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 08:04:55AM -0600, Chris Adams wrote:
> > > EPEL has run this way for a while, and it doesn't seem to be a problem.
> > 
> > EPEL is very different. Packages in EPEL have been tested in fedora and so
> > will very rarely need hotfixes aor regression fixes (except for security
> > fixes, which if I recall well are covered by an exception already).
> That reasoning would tend to argue for the reverse of EPEL's policy.  If
> the packages are so stable, why go through testing?

Because EPEL has to be very stable, so additional time spent in testing is
even better, for example for reasons you highlight below. I never said 
that packages should not go through testing in EPEL! But Fedora is another 

> Every time a package is built, it is susceptible to new bugs.  Packaging
> bugs, build requirement changes, and software bugs all creep in, and not
> trying to ram things out the door as fast as possible seems like a good
> idea.

Of course. But my point is not that EPEL should not go through mandatory
testing, but that Fedora packages are much more likely to require hotfixes
and regression fixes. When packages enter EPEL they may need some interation
testing, but very rarely hotfixes.


More information about the devel mailing list