REVIEW/RFC: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Kevin/Updates_Policy_Draft

[Till Maas]

On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 01:03:13PM -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 22:21:33 +0200
> Till Maas <opensource at till.name> wrote:

> > Also can someone please explain the practical advantages of requiring
> > the autokarma threshold to approve the ability to push a non critical
> > path update to stable instead of just requiring a net karma sum of 1?
> > I asked for this several times on the Update Policy ticket but did not
> > get any answer:
> > https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/351#comment:55
> 
> I don't know that there are practical advantages, I think it's a
> implementation detail. I'd be fine to making it allow after +1 for non
> critical path updates. Could you file a RFE on bodhi for that?
> (please cc me?)

Done:
https://fedorahosted.org/bodhi/ticket/488

The practical advantage is that getting updates allowed to be pushed to
stable does is disjunct from automatically pushing this update to
stable. E.g. even if one is allowed to push the package to stable, one might
not want to do it already with only a net karma of one.

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/20101007/c8d6eb32/attachment.bin