Drawing lessons from fatal SELinux bug #1054350
awilliam at redhat.com
Fri Jan 24 23:24:53 UTC 2014
On Fri, 2014-01-24 at 22:36 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> That's why I think there's reason to be very careful and sometimes even
> prefer a +0 (with a comment) over a very early over-ambitious +1.
> And guess what happens in non-critpath updates after 7 days and _no_
> feedback. Packagers push the update manually. Sometimes with broken
> deps. Sometimes the testing starts no sooner than when the update arrives
> in the stable updates repo and the first real user becomes the "guinea
> Good point. Raises the question why an update that links so many bugzilla
> tickets can be marked stable automatically after a +3, which may be even
> about a single bz ticket.
See, this is what happens when we have a fundamentally inadequate
process: an eternal tug-of-war between the tendency to prioritize
'safety' (in a very dumb and insufficiently granular way) and the
tendency to prioritize 'getting updates out' (in a very dumb and
insufficiently granular way). There are reasonable arguments in favour
of both sides.
I incline to the view that any time there is a situation like this -
where there are two alternative ways of doing something, both bad in
different ways, and roughly equally strong arguments on either side -
it's not a great use of anyone's time to keep tweaking things to one end
of the continuum or the other; _we need a better process_.
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
More information about the devel