On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 7:49 AM, David Malcolm <dmalcolm@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Rationale: it's my belief that a rebase to a different upstream version > typically carries greater risk of destabilization than targeted > patching. Thus, a bump to a more recent upstream should receive more > testing than a packaging/patch change. hmmm......I like that. However that would still require having people consume updates-testing and reporting in bodhi. Do we have enough people doing that? Do we have a good picture of how many are consuming testing right now? If we got a ratio of the number of ips in the mirrormanager logs for updates-testing to updates-stable in say the last week of F9 mirrormanager activity we'd have a baseline understanding of the percentage of the base which is consuming testing. I'm going to talk about my experience for a second, mainly because I like talking about me. For most of the packages I maintain I don't think I've ever seen karma raised to 3 or down to -3 for any package I've had in testing...even when the update was pushed specifically as a bugfix. I'll maybe get the reporter to chime in, but maybe not in bodhi it maybe in the bugticket as a new comment (and it maybe by consuming the koji builds directly before the bodhi push). I'm not sure I'd ever see an update for one of my packages pushed t stable if I waited for bodhi karma to pile up, my packages just aren't that important and don't appear in any default packageset for a spin. Maybe that's different for more critical or more important packages. -jef -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
