Proposed udpates policy change

[Ian Weller]

On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 09:59:29PM +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> We assume the following axioms:
> 
> 1) Updates to stable that result in any reduction of functionality to 
> the user are unacceptable.
> 
> 2) It is impossible to ensure that functionality will not be reduced 
> without sufficient testing.
> 
> 3) Sufficient testing of software inherently requires manual 
> intervention by more than one individual.

I agree with these.

> Proposal
> --------
> 
> The ability for maintainers to flag an update directly into the updates 
> repository will be disabled. Before being added to updates, the package 
> must receive a net karma of +3 in Bodhi.

I have some difficulty agreeing that +3 is "sufficient testing" for all
packages. I know a *lot* of people who used Gwibber when I maintained
it. It's probably the most used package I have ever maintained, and I
couldn't get anybody to test it without lobbying people in #fedora-docs
and on the Planet. +3 is too much for packages like these.

It's not the job of a package maintainer to campaign and say "hey, pay
attention to my package that only provides one Python function for a few
people who need it," let alone a nicely-done end-user application that a
lot of people use.

Maybe +3 karma is OK if we allow for a push straight to updates after
the old_testing period comes along. (Oh look, another new one of those
in my INBOX now.)

> At present, this policy will not apply to updates that are flagged as 
> security updates.

Why? Don't those need testing too?

-- 
Ian Weller <ian at ianweller.org>
()  ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
/\  www.asciiribbon.org   - against proprietary attachments
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20100308/609ab78c/attachment.bin