QA's Package update policy proposal

Jesse Keating jkeating at redhat.com
Wed Mar 10 00:11:32 UTC 2010


On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 16:08 -0800, Josh Stone wrote:
> On 03/09/2010 03:43 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > James Laska wrote:
> >>      3. Package must be newer than previously released versions - can't
> >>         ship newer package in N-1.
> > 
> > Definitely, but we must make sure that it's still possible to queue the same 
> > update for N and N-1 at the same time (= without having to wait for a push 
> > between queueing N and queueing N-1).
> 
> I'm in the habit of queuing for N and N-1 in a single bodhi request.  Is
> this addressed by any of our existing or proposed update policies?
> 
> It seems to cast doubt on the value of karma -- just because something
> gets lots of positive karma on N doesn't mean that N-1 is ok.  Then
> again, the same concern is present in any grouped update if the voters
> haven't tried *all* of the packages mentioned.
> 
> Josh

Even if you put an update for N and N-1 in the same form, once you
submit the request it splits it into two requests, one per Fedora
release.  This means you'd have one set of karma per Fedora release.

-- 
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature!
identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20100309/1f601314/attachment.bin 


More information about the devel mailing list