Patrice Dumas wrote:
On Tue, May 15, 2007 at 03:51:50PM -0400, Christopher Blizzard wrote:
I've been following this thread pretty casually. So here are my
thoughts:
3. We want to make sure some testing gets done on these packages.
4. We want to make sure that there's _some_ comment about why an update
happens that end users might understand.
Does that sound reasonable?
In some cases it is unneeded burden and bureaucracy. In many cases it
makes sense, though. It should be there, but not mandatory, left to the
maintainer best jugdement.
We have packaging guidelines today to help maintainers know how to
package software and having a common understanding on what is required.
We have a large collection of packages now and regressions are quite
high. We need good QA guidelines. Simply relying on trust and best
judgment on everything to individual maintainers doesn't scale well and
is rather naive. Have you looked at how many major regressions we have
for every release?
If it is a important security or bug fix you can push it directly but on
all other occasions it is very helpful if you could give some chance for
people interested in testing to look at the update and check if there
are any issues. Exceptions can go through release engineering/QA team.
Updates in the general case would get pushed to updates-testing first
and automatically move to general updates repo after a small amount of
time. The maintainer can choose to extend the period or pull the
package. It shouldn't be a significant additional burden at all. I will
work with Will Woods to write down more specific details.
Rahul
--
Fedora-maintainers mailing list
Fedora-maintainers@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers
--
Fedora-maintainers-readonly mailing list
Fedora-maintainers-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers-readonly
