The new Update Acceptance Criteria are broken

[Till Maas]

On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 08:03:35AM -0600, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 13:59:24 +0100,
>   Till Maas <opensource at till.name> wrote:

> > The optimal case is to provide well tested security updates fast, but
> > this is not what Fedora achieves. In my example there is no indication
> > that the update was especially tested, because it did not get any karma.
> > And it was not provided fast.
> 
> There is definitely a problem that needs fixing. But I don't think changing
> the goal to untested security updates provided quickly is the preferred
> solution.

The root cause for the new update acceptance criteria was that there
where updates that broke systems. Now with the criteria enforced,
systems are broken worse according to the collection of bad update
examples, because of updates not being pushed to stable. This was
something that was always being highlighted as a potential problem iirc
and yet it happend.

> Perhaps we should have a way to draw attention to high priority updates.
> Generally we need more testers and need to make them more efficient.
> (Test plans for packages can make testing more efficient and accurate.)

Yes, more manpower would help, but where should it come from?

Regards
Till
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20101118/06451e2b/attachment.bin