Bodhi 0.7.5 release
awilliam at redhat.com
Wed Jun 30 19:14:11 UTC 2010
On Wed, 2010-06-30 at 15:04 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Adam Williamson <awilliam at redhat.com> writes:
> > On Wed, 2010-06-30 at 11:35 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> The proposed policy might be workable if we had a surplus of
> >> proventester manpower available, but we obviously have not got that.
> > See above, you cannot judge this on current experience.
> Yes I can. I have two critpath packages that are in testing with
> security bugs, both pretty small and easy to test, and both still have
> karma zero. That seems to me to be adequate proof that there's not the
> manpower out there to do this.
> The right way to go about this is to ramp up proventester manpower
> *first* before making it a required gating factor. If we were at the
> point where any significant fraction of packages were being auto-pushed
> due to +3 karma, I would be fine with the proposed policy.
We've been doing both together. Please see the QA mailing list archives
and meeting minutes for the last few weeks. As Will mentioned, we have a
bunch (actually 14) proventester mentor requests which we have started
to accept as of this morning, and I asked existing proventesters to
start (or start again, as they were doing it during the pre-release F13
period) proactively testing critpath updates last night.
I'd remind you that we've actually already had a period of several weeks
where this system was active - before the F13 release, when critpath
package pushes required feedback from a member of qa or releng - and
that worked out fine, the packages got pushed and we did the release.
Now we have a better process with a dedicated group and more people in
it or about to be in it and fewer pushes to handle (I'd hope so, anyway;
there should be fewer pushes for a release *after* it goes out than
*before*), so it seems unlikely it would work any worse than it did
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
More information about the devel