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

[Kevin Fenzi]

On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 12:11:20 -0600 (CST)
Mike McGrath <mmcgrath at redhat.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 1 Mar 2010, 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.
> >
> > In EPEL, where there is a mandatory period of "testing" for
> > updates, I almost never get Bodhi karma, and if I do, it is only
> > because I have been aggressively harassing users to test and give
> > karma.
> >
> 
> This has been my experience too.  While I like the ability to have a
> karma / feedback system.  In reality it doesn't seem to actually be
> part of our package release workflow.

I will note again that 0 karma doesn't mean that it's not been tested. 

I run here with updates-testing enabled, but often only report -karma
when things break. There are just so many things in updates-testing,
that I usually don't have time or energy to +1 all of them that work. 

I have reported -karma on about 4-5 things in the f12 cycle and also
actively asked others to do so, preventing these things from being
pushed, so I don't agree that updates-testing is not useful. 

kevin
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20100301/d765792a/attachment.bin