The new Update Acceptance Criteria are broken

Till Maas opensource at till.name
Sun Nov 21 17:59:12 UTC 2010


On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 02:09:47PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-11-20 at 14:49 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > On Fri, 19 Nov 2010 22:04:24 -0800
> > Adam Williamson <awilliam at redhat.com> wrote:
> > 
> > ...snip...
> > 
> > > > https://fedorahosted.org/bodhi/ticket/277
> > > 
> > > hum, that wasn't well publicised, and I wasn't aware of it. (I should
> > > probably show up to more FESCo meetings...picture FESCo members going
> > > 'no, no, really, it's fine!') I'd disagree, for the reasons above.
> > 
> > Well, my thought on it is: 
> > 
> > * As maintainer, shouldn't you be testing your updates already? Granted
> >   there's often no way you could test everything, but at least
> >   installing it and confirming the bug(s) you claim are fixed are
> >   fixed? 
> 
> I do. I don't believe all maintainers do. It's pretty hard to explain
> why updates that completely prevent the app in question from working, or
> even prevent the system from booting, got pushed in the past, if all
> maintainers actually test their updates.

I guess the easiest way to find out why the maintainers did it, is to
ask them.

Btw. especially on maintainer systems it is pretty easy to not test the
current update situation, e.g. because different versions than currently
in the build root might be installed on the maintainer's machine or the
maintainers might use local mock builds instead of the actual update.
Off course I do not know, whether any of these possible pitfalls have
been hit in the past.

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/20101121/6e18506a/attachment.bin 


More information about the devel mailing list