Important kernel update should not break stuff
jwboyer at gmail.com
Wed Jun 13 13:36:47 UTC 2012
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 9:24 AM, Roman Kennke <rkennke at redhat.com> wrote:
> Would it make sense to require more karma than just the default 3?
> Looking at:
> I see that there are 5 oks and 2 denys, which actually point to bug
> reports, both sound fairly important. How does the karma system work if,
> e.g., update requires +3, the update gets +4 and -1, and this -1 is
> something that can be considered a release critical bug? data corruption
> sounds quite release-critical? Is there a mechanism that prevents the
> update to happen in this case?
The person that submits the update gets emails for every comment added
to the update. This particular one had a couple things that happened
1) It got the requisite karma for stable rather quickly
2) Justin was on vacation when the negative karma was submitted. Bodhi
only emails the update submitter and the rest of the kernel team didn't
I'm sure that it would have been pulled if Justin was actually around
or if the rest of the kernel team had remembered to go check the
update. It's something that can be looked at in the future.
More information about the devel