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

Adam Williamson awilliam at redhat.com
Sat Feb 27 16:27:31 UTC 2010

On Sat, 2010-02-27 at 10:57 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:

> > Sorry, I was replying in haste. I should've made clear that I was
> > talking more in general, and don't have any specific direct knowledge of
> > the dnssec case. I know of multiple cases where updates have been pushed
> > hastily, but I don't have any direct knowledge of the dnssec case
> > specifically and wouldn't want to cast any aspersions in anyone's
> > direction there.
> >    
> Well, to voting is an inadequate means for judging a package's quality, 
> because bugs showing in individual cases are not co-related to "works 
> for many" - It's a fundamental flaw of the system.

Yeah, it's not perfect: there are cases where we have, say, a complex
kernel update which works fine for most people but causes a significant
regression for some particular bit of hardware. We wouldn't want to put
that update out, but it's easy for it to get five +1s before someone
with the specific bit of hardware comes by and gives it a -1...and even
then, +4 looks good if you're not reading the feedback too carefully.

So yeah, I agree it's not a perfect system - detailed suggestions for
improving it would be welcome, I'm sure. I don't think 'not perfect' is
the same as 'useless', though. I think it's pretty easy to make a case
that Bodhi has had a significant positive impact on the overall quality
of the updates that have fully utilized it. It rarely makes things
*worse* :)
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org

More information about the devel mailing list