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

[James Antill]

On Mon, 2010-03-01 at 13:01 -0500, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
> On 03/01/2010 12:48 PM, Peter Jones wrote:
> > I'd also like a policy in place to help us avoid situations like the
> > recent dnssec unpleasantness.
> 
> Sure. I'm just not at all convinced that if those packages had sit in
> testing for $ARBITRARY_PERIOD_OF_TIME that they would have been tested
> and fixed.

 But that's mostly self-fullfilling, at the moment I doubt anyone keep
up with the numbers of packages hitting "updates" ... so expecting
people to keep up with that _and_ test a significant portion of
"updates-testing" is just asking too much.

 It would also help if we cut down on the number of updates for each
package, and had better update descriptions for each package.
 So I did my proposal, which I think will motivate packagers to do the
right thing (giving lots of choice to the users and a reasonable number
of packages to test) and not removing the ability of packagers to do
what they want (and have the stable firehose):

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Release_Lifecycle(draft)#Choice_.28james.29

-- 
James Antill - james at fedoraproject.org
http://yum.baseurl.org/wiki/releases
http://yum.baseurl.org/wiki/whatsnew/3.2.27
http://yum.baseurl.org/wiki/YumMultipleMachineCaching