On Tue, Dec 09, 2008 at 10:49:55AM +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote: > On Tue, 09 Dec 2008 04:55:33 +0100, Kevin wrote: > > > I think we need to be more careful with certain types of security updates, > > and better let them get some QA even if it means the fix gets delayed. > > QA ... reminds me to ask once more: > > Where can I learn more about the thing referred to as "Fedora QA"? > Who is it? What do they do? Unless I have missed something, currently there is no QA done. One reason is that bodhi pushes already take one day, and adding some QA would delay even more. Verifying duplicate provides would be, in my opinio, the first thing to add. More offline QA could be done, though. Currently I am not even sure that never checking scripts are sent. There is the FTBFS stuff, however, and broken dependencies are reported. > Fedora has a serious problem with updates that are pushed out to "stable" > directly. Originally we've had a guideline to use updates-testing for > a few days. Sometime it is better to push directly to stable, when the package is already broken, when it is a security fix, or for packages with few users. -- Pat -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
