On Mon, 2008-07-07 at 11:37 -0400, John W. Linville wrote: > On Sat, Jul 05, 2008 at 02:56:30PM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > > Three things spring to my mind and I just propose then here for > > discussion; maybe something good comes out of it in the end: > > > > - a karama of "+3" in bodhi seems not enough for a auto-move from > > testing to stable (or even worse: straight to stable if enough people > > tested the kernel and gave their +1 after the update got filed in bodhi > > but *before* it actually hit fedora-testing) if there are no other > > pressing issues (like security fixes). The kernel is a to complex beast; > > more then 3 people should be needed to give a +1. And a bit of time > > needs to pass to give enough people the opportunity to install, test and > > report problems with new kernels. For the latest kernel it seems to me > > that "to less time" really was the problem, otherwise the problem from > > #453390 would have been noticed earlier > > Something is definitely broken here. I seem to recall beating the > drum for Karma in the not-too-distant past, when the required number > seemed to be up in the teens? Who's bright idea was it to bring > this value down to +3? My assumption had been that it was okay to > push these wireless bits because Bodhi would keep us from releasing > truly broken kernels. If we are going to use +3 then my assumption > is clearly wrong and my practices have to change. Karma for kernel packages is a stupid idea anyway. If I wasn't busy/lazy, I'd actually submit my proposal to have the kernel package exempted from the automated karma rules altogether. josh _______________________________________________ Fedora-kernel-list mailing list Fedora-kernel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-kernel-list
