The new Update Acceptance Criteria are broken (was: Re: Heads Up - New Firefox update)
henrik at henriknordstrom.net
Mon Nov 1 21:54:50 UTC 2010
mån 2010-11-01 klockan 10:09 -0700 skrev Adam Williamson:
> I disagree. The evidence you cite does not support this conclusion. We
> implemented the policies for three releases. There are significant
> problems with one release. This does not justify the conclusion that the
> policies should be entirely repealed.
I don't mind the process in general, but have some points where it can
Very often the same update is submitted for several releases, and it's
kind of pointless to require full karma in all releases (to require some
in each release is ok). If one release has got full karma then it's
reasonable to require less karma on other releases receiving the same
update. The risk for non-obvious regression for some release only is
fairly low, more likely there is very obvious release specific
regressions like dependency failures when another package have been
split/merged etc and related fuckups.
We also need some obvious ways where users in general can subscribe to
testing updates of stuff that they care about, to expand the userbase
that performs testing of updates. Generally running a system with
updates-testing always enabled is scary and not many want to take that
leap. But I think that if we could give users the ability to subscribe
to testing packages X,Y,Z of their choics and getting update & testing
notifications for those packages only from updates-testing would speed
things up considerably.
In addition the package management & update request process could do
with some serious makeover to streamline the process and reduce risk for
error, but that's topic for another thread.
More information about the devel