On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 4:14 PM, Mike McGrath <mmcgrath@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, 16 Dec 2009, Josh Boyer wrote: > >> On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 10:50:59AM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote: >> >ok, so perhaps it's this planning that I am wondering about, and should >> >ask on the test list. >> > >> >So, not sure if this is just a rephrasing of this proposal, but: >> > >> >- All updates need to spend time in updates-testing unless they are >> > security related. >> >> Sounds like exactly what EPEL does. I think enforcement is manual >> there still, and that isn't going to scale to Fedora. The change >> should be fairly minimal though. >> > > Dennis can speak to this better then I can but as I understand it several > people try to go around the policies and go straight to stable > immediately, even after it's been explained to them. Bodhi itself doesn't > quite have that workflow built into it so I think at times dennis and the > packager have gotten into a "It's stable" "It's testing" "it's stable" > fight. I actually did this once myself, inadvertently, because I didn't understand the workflow (it was a new package). I guess technically it wasn't a fight but more like a tug of war you don't realize you're in at first. :-) But I think the discussion is getting away from the topic a bit. Paul _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
