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

[Patrice Dumas]

On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 04:50:20PM -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Patrice Dumas (pertusus at free.fr) said: 
> > > > Bringinig down productivity of good packagers for a few bad ones, is,
> > > > in my opinion, not a good move. 
> > > 
> > > Fedora doesn't exist for the productivity of packagers. It exists for
> > > the productivity of our users. 
> > 
> > Both are related (except of course for people paid to work on
> > fedora).
> 
> Not really. I use Fedora every day. The fact that I use it for packaging
> things is a small small part of my usage of it. The extra 2 minutes or so
> to twiddle an update differently is far far far outweighed by, say, X
> exploding. Or thunderbird eating mail. Or any other variety of things that
> could happen.

That's not what I was implying. What I was implying is, if packager 
productivity diminishes, it impacts all the users since there is
less packager work done.

> > I fully agree with that. But pushing to stable rapidly may help 
> > correct rapidly regerssions, too.
> 
> Wait. You don't want policies designed to avoid pushing regressions, so
> that you can push fixes for the regressions you've given to people faster?
> 
> That's... impressive.

Regressions happen whatever policies are done. Imagine a specialized
package that hasn't any tester besides the maintainer (though it 
has users), this was the case for most of the packages I maintained
in Fedora. A user wait for X days to have a package pushed that fixes
a bug. It introduces a regression which is detected by a user who 
uses the stable release and not updates-testing. Should the users
wait X days before the regression is fixed?

--
Pat