critpath approval process seems rather broken

[Adam Williamson]

On Sat, 2011-04-09 at 13:31 +0200, drago01 wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 12:57 PM, Tomasz Torcz <tomek at pipebreaker.pl> wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 09, 2011 at 05:32:04AM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> >> Will Woods wrote:
> >> > In fact, there's plenty of approvers available, but you're not engaging
> >> > with them. They might not know how to test libtiff, or what needs
> >> > testing, so other stuff gets tested first.
> >>
> >> The fact is, this is a SECURITY UPDATE and as such it should go out even
> >> without testing. It's not acceptable to sit on security updates for weeks.
> >
> >  No, security updates are not _that_ special.  For example, there's
> > an avahi update in pipeline.  It has broken dependencies.  Pushing this
> > would broke some systems. I'm talking about:
> > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/avahi-0.6.27-6.fc14
> 
> Packages with broken dependencies should just be unpushable (autoqa
> was supposed to fix this but not sure what happend to it ...)
> 
> We really should do an automated dep check before pushing updates (and
> reject those with broken deps).

autoqa is doing this since recently, but only as an advisory check until
we make sure it's running smoothly.
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net