FESCo wants a more sane updates policy (feedback requested)

[Till Maas]

On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 03:54:02PM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:

> b. Given a, I would say people should stop posting to this thread. If
> you have a better updates policy in mind, perhaps you could draft up a
> proposal for what you think it should be? Or wait for a real proposal
> to comment on?

Since AutoQA is supposed to to behaviour testing of packages eventually,
how about a policy that says:

A stable update to Fedora must pass all AutoQA tests.

Then the granularity of stability can be adjusted by adding tests to
AutoQA. And I hope that only reasonable tests will be added to AutoQA,
e.g. a test that just ensures that a packages stays at version X would
not be one. But if it ensures that e.g. "yum-builddep foo.src.rpm"
installs all build deps of foo, it would be a useful test.

> - I think educating our maintainers to be more carefull or get more
>   testing feedback has not worked so far, nor is it likely to moving
>   forward. We simply seem to lack the communications channel to do so. 

If the maintainer receive more testing feedback, they probably won't
ignore it.

> - I think perhaps a more lifecycle like thing could help our users know
>   what to expect. Currently, they don't. They could get a major version
>   bump at any time, in a older "stable" release. I have talked to users
>   who are are f11 still because they think it will be "most stable" but
>   then are dismayed with how many updates they get. 

Pushing less updates to F(current-1) is probably something many
maintainers can live with. But I have also heard of people using
F(current-1) and feeling like secondary users, because they did not get
the updates that F(current) got.

> - Perhaps we could look at ways to make rawhide more day to day
>   friendly. I think the autoqa stuff might help here. If those people
>   that needed the very newest version of everything could use rawhide,
>   perhaps we could target the stable releases more to those that want
>   them. 

There will always be updates in Rawhide that are not meant to be
consumed directly or without manual intervention.

Regards
Till
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20100227/bb9290a2/attachment.bin