FESCo wants to ban direct stable pushes in Bodhi (urgent call for feedback)
jkeating at redhat.com
Fri Feb 26 15:50:05 UTC 2010
On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 16:20 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Jesse Keating wrote:
> > On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 14:55 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> >> > The possibility to publish hot-fixes is most important.
> >> +1. Not being able to push those out quickly would really suck.
> > What sucks more is recent "hot-fixes" which were even more broken than
> > the issue they were trying to fix. They were pushed directly to stable
> > and broke a significant number of systems because of a scenario the
> > maintainer didn't imagine or test.
> Those weren't "hot-fixes", they were fixes for an issue which wasn't really
> a regression. They were also quite invasive and risky, very much unlike the
> trivial fixes I'm talking about. The maintainer simply underestimated the
> risk, maybe he also overestimated the urgency. But that's not an issue with
> the process.
> Kevin Kofler
It is an issue with the process when the process allows for these types
of updates to go direct to stable without getting any karma along the
way. It clearly illustrates that we need a system that protects our
users from our maintainers, as our maintainers clearly cannot do it
Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature!
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20100226/052a83ae/attachment.bin
More information about the devel