awilliam at redhat.com
Wed Jun 9 23:02:35 UTC 2010
On Wed, 2010-06-09 at 09:35 +0200, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
> that I've already fixed. Users want fixes immediately, they are not
> interested in some processes. Many users don't even have FAS account and
Users also want regressions not to happen (see how much belly-aching
there is over the nss multilib issue, or any of the famous historical
regressions - udev etc). These two things are not mutually compatible.
>  https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-LDAP-0.40-1.fc13
>  https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-version-0.82-1.fc13
perl-version is in the critpath, but perl-LDAP is not; there would be no
enforcement of update karma for perl-LDAP. There is no enforced waiting
period for updates at present, the only criterion that's ever been
enforced is that, during the pre-release phase, F13 updates required +1
from someone in rel-eng or qa and another +1 from anyone to be pushed.
This has not been the case since F13's release, as we're working on the
permanent process; in the meantime, it works as it always has
historically (you can push anything you want at any time).
Are you sure your updates didn't just get held up in the pre-release
freeze? There's nothing new about that, we've been freezing immediately
prior to release for years. But looking at the dates, I'm fairly sure
that at the time you did the perl-LDAP update, you could have pushed it
to stable without any problems, if you'd tried. Your perl-version update
got the required threshold of feedback exactly one week after it was
pushed to testing (submitted 2010-05-11, pushed 2010-05-12, second +1
received 2010-05-19); you could have submitted it to stable any time
after that second +1 was received.
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
More information about the devel