Proposed udpates policy change

[Steven M. Parrish]

On Monday 08 March 2010 05:32:01 pm Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> ...snip...
> 
> Thanks for working on this Matthew!
> 
> A small issue:
> 
> - If the policy states +3 is needed, does that mean we are locking all
>   updates to require this amount, no more no less? This could be bad
>   for packages where the maintainer might want more testing. Perhaps it
>   should be 'no less than +3' ? or 'at least +3' ?
> 
> I personally like this idea (at least to try out and see how well it
> works). I do think we should continue to address longer term update or
> pace issues.
> 
> I would suggest people with feedback write up their feedback clearly
> for this thread and avoid back and forth filibustering.
> 
> kevin

As a maintainer I have seen several of my packages sit in updates testing for 
over 2 weeks with no comments and no karma.  In fact they sat so long I got 
nag mail about not pushing them.  Requiring a karma of +3 to push is just not 
going to work by itself.  If anything it should be 'An update cannot be pushed 
to stable until either it reaches a Karma of +3 or it has been in updates 
testing for 14 days with no negative karma."

Steven
-- 
 =====================================================
 Steven M. Parrish
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 gpg fingerprint: 4B6C 8357 059E B7ED 8095 0FD6 1F4B EDA0 A9A6 13C0
 http://tuxbrewr.fedorapeople.org/
 irc.freenode.net: 
Nickname: SMParrish 
Channels: #fedora-kde, #fedora-olpc, #fedora-edu, #sugar, #packagekit