The new Update Acceptance Criteria are broken

[Till Maas]

On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 11:42:19AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:

> it's worth noting that part of the point of the 7-day clause is to cover
> 'invisible testing'; even if people aren't posting feedback to Bodhi,
> it's likely that if the update actually is broken, we will find out one
> way or another within 7 days (some people will post negative feedback to
> Bodhi but not positive; or we'll get notified on an ML, or forums, or
> something).

IMHO it is pretty unlikely that people use updates-testing but do not
care about posting feedback to Bodhi.

> responsibility for getting their packages testing it. if you're
> packaging something, presumably you know *somebody* who uses it: the
> idea is that you can ask them to test it and provide the bodhi feedback,
> not just rely on someone who runs fedora-easy-karma as a matter of
> course providing feedback.

I usually do not know who uses my packages except for me. And I am also
not interested to track for each of my packages who uses it and on which
Fedora release. This is something that can be done centrally if desired.
Also one would need to know at least three other people using different
Fedora releases.

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/20101121/3500855b/attachment.bin