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

Kevin Kofler kevin.kofler at chello.at
Fri Feb 26 15:15:37 UTC 2010

Patrice Dumas wrote:
> I may be remebering wrong, but an argument for bodhi against those who
> wanted a simpler push mechanism (like wwhat was in the fedora extra days)
> and argued that bodhi will add more unecessary delays was that there
> always was the possibility to push to stable for packagers.


And actually, initially, Bodhi didn't allow direct stable pushes except for 
security updates. People complained a lot about that (and for good reasons, 
which are also being brought up in this thread) and so direct stable pushes 
got added. So why now try to go back to something that didn't work?

> Bringinig down productivity of good packagers for a few bad ones, is,
> in my opinion, not a good move.


> Also, I find it quite ridiculous to have to give use cases, if people
> in FESCo have never needed a direct push to stable, they necessarily
> haven't done enough packaging -- though seeing who is in FESCo, it looks
> quite strange to me since some members are seasoned packagers and some
> even were here before bodhi.

Yeah, it quite surprised me that I was the only one seeing a need for this 
feature in FESCo!

        Kevin Kofler

More information about the devel mailing list