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

[Bill Nottingham]

Patrice Dumas (pertusus at free.fr) said: 
> > 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.

Not necessarily. From what you state below about your (former?)
packages, if your productivity was diminished by some random number
of minutes/hours, it would likely not affect me, or a large percentage of
our users, at all.

> > 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?

1) You're ignoring any possiblity of improving the testing
2) What in the policy defined a number of days?

Bill