Evolution update in F13
oget.fedora at gmail.com
Sat Jun 26 17:24:11 UTC 2010
On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 12:14 PM, Luke Macken wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-06-25 at 22:50 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
>> I talked to notting &c about this earlier, and we've hit this situation
>> before. The 'scenario' is simply that there's really no screening
>> between 'submit' and 'push' for stable updates, and this one was
>> submitted to stable before any negative karma came in. There's no
>> reliable process whereby whoever's doing the push to stable actually
>> looks at feedback before doing it; unless they happen to have been made
>> aware that a particular package shouldn't be pushed, they just push
>> everything that's been submitted.
> There actually is a way to get feedback on updates before pushing.
> Bodhi's admin request list interface gives everything in the list headed
> to stable a color based on some heuristics. So it's quite easy to scan
> the list and look at the red updates, which have negative karma, or
> haven't been in testing long. However, I think all of our bodhi admins
> who kick off the pushes use the command-line instead.
> I think that in this case, the command-line bodhi client could be
> improved to make it obvious that they're about to push an update with
> negative karma.
Once 2 curious users went and downloaded the package for their
architecture from koji when it was in queue for testing (it wasn't in
the repo yet). They couldn't install the package because they couldn't
figure out that they need to download the noarch subpackage that needs
to be installed simultaneously with the arch-specific one. They gave
me -2 karma for that reason, which means absolutely nothing.
Therefore banning a push because of negative karma can be pointless in
certain cases. Again, my vote goes to leave everything in testing for
336 hours, at least, and proceeding accordingly.
More information about the devel