QA's Package update policy proposal
mschwendt at gmail.com
Tue Mar 9 17:56:13 UTC 2010
On Tue, 9 Mar 2010 12:21:04 -0500 (EST), Kamil wrote:
> The proposal is here:
> If you dislike some
> idea, please don't consider it the end of the world, that is
> worth creating another endless flame-war discussion.
Why not? The end is near, it seems to me. It's like fear of castration.
These mad proposals deserve to be flamed. Thanks to the "Fedora School
Of Developing Bad Attitudes", I see myself gaining experience on how to
become a 2nd level troll. :-( I hate that, but these proposals pop up
like mushrooms and spread like a disease.
> If you are interested in comparing this proposal to common
> practices in other Linux distributions, please see a short
> summary here:
Interested? Well, to what extent? Do we need to copy from those other
distributions? Do they perform extra-ordinarily well in those areas? I
don't think so. I see packages that aren't well-maintained and don't
receive bug-fixes by those distributions. I see bug trackers full of old
issues. Something's wrong there, for sure. Most likely their admin teams,
who would need to sign off updates in accordance with some protocol, could
not handle the task if there were more updates.
> Thank you for constructive comments.
I would prefer opt-in over opt-out.
Currently, I can toggle karma automatism and even alter the karma
thresholds. That has been good enough for the beginning.
If you - and the QA team - want to expand your testing activities, focus
on the CRITPATH packages first. Do a good job there. Nobody from QA has
ever given feedback to any of my updates, and it won't happen in the
future either. There won't be real testing of those packages unless you
could dedicate resources like some great users do it. But you can't.
More information about the devel