QA's Package update policy proposal

[Kevin Kofler]

Jesse Keating wrote:

> On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 16:08 -0800, Josh Stone wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> 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.

Indeed, and I'd argue that this is a problem, not a feature. If an update is 
confirmed to fix an issue in the current stable release and the previous 
stable release is affected by the exact same issue, I don't see a good 
reason not to push the update with identical changes to the previous stable 
release as well. Not doing it would result in the previous stable release 
not getting bugfixes in a timely manner, if at all, anymore, as it has a lot 
fewer testers.

        Kevin Kofler