BEWARE: a problematic glibc made it to stable (F16)

Adam Williamson awilliam at
Wed Oct 19 23:08:10 UTC 2011

On Thu, 2011-10-20 at 00:30 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 23:36:43 +0200, HA (Heiko) wrote:
> > IMHO Rawhide should be the only place where version-control-snapshots
> > of such an important component like glibc should be allowed.
> > 
> > Maybe it would be better to let the value of positive karma depend on
> > the severity of the package. That would mean that packages like glibc
> > would require more positive karma for being pushed to stable than
> > packages like gedit.
> Bodhi would need to be changed first. 
> So far, what some package maintainers do is to wait for a first +1, then
> edit the bodhi ticket to replace the builds, and that doesn't reset the
> current karma level to zero. The new builds may be completely broken.

I'm not aware of any case of a maintainer doing this intentionally, if
that's what you're suggesting. Editing updates with new builds is a
reasonably common action and there are perfectly legitimate reasons to
do it. I thought the bug where Bodhi doesn't reset karma when you do
this was supposed to be getting fixed...
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | adamwfedora

More information about the devel mailing list