On 01.06.2007 13:20, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-06-01 at 06:38 -0400, Luke Macken wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 09:07:36AM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
>>> Bastien Nocera wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 2007-05-31 at 11:11 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday 31 May 2007 10:58:31 Bastien Nocera wrote:
>>>>>> Is it an enhancement, or a bugfix, or neither?
>>>>> Enhancement (to the distribution)
>>>> It would be easier if the update was a bit clever about new packages,
>>>> and made them bypass updates-testing automatically.
>>> +1
>> Just because it's a new package means it doesn't need to be tested? :)
> No, because pushing packages into "testing" makes sense when chasing
> specific bugs ("does this version fix kernel bug XYZ") or in case of
> very complex packages (such as the kernel).
I'd say even in easy package there is always a chance something goes
wrong, so in my opinion it IMHO would be best if all packages hit
testing at least for a short timeframe.
> In most other cases, "testing" just means delaying packages and pushing
> additional bureaucratic hurdles onto maintainers (yet more forms to fill
> out).
Then let's try to get the hurdles down again that currently come each
and everywhere . E.g. the workflow IMHO should be something like this:
- $ cvs commit -m "foo"
- $ make tag
- $ make build
-- bodhi here afaics somehow needs to get some informations; e.g.
--- from a file
--- from the changelog
--- via a parameter to make build
--- simply by asking (similar how cvs will ask when you don't use "-m"
- package goes to testing automatically
- if nobody pushes a stop button in the next 4 (?) days something
automatically should move the package to updates-proper
> [...]
CU
thl
--
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
