FESCo wants to ban direct stable pushes in Bodhi (urgent call for feedback)
lists at sapience.com
Sat Feb 27 16:35:07 UTC 2010
On 02/27/2010 11:27 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-02-27 at 10:57 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> 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.
And of course the opposite - where some strong views on a minor
non-stopper might hold things back even tho more careful thought may
lead one to release and do minor fixups later.
More information about the devel