On 10/14/2009 01:13 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Rahul Sundaram wrote: >> If maintainers choose to include a beta release, then it would have been >> better to collect more feedback for a longer period of time for updates. > > I already answered this in more detail on your blog, but: > 1. It's a security update, so a short testing period is normal. That really depends on the severity of the update vs the potential to cause problems. Remember the d-bus security update that caused so many problems not so long ago? That one was a security update as well. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F11/FEDORA-2009-9911?_csrf_token=b77b748e49c5311eb85031331cb2f6474028d615 The update neither details what the security issues or nor does it tell what other changes have been made. Not even a link to the upstream release notes. So let's look at that http://www.mozillamessaging.com/en-US/thunderbird/3.0b4/releasenotes/ Hmmm. Not much details on what the security issue being fixed is. The only mention of security is about some SSL change http://www.rumblingedge.com/2009/09/23/thunderbird-3-beta-4-released/ So I have no idea how severe the security problem was > 2. It reached +3 karma and got automatically queued for stable. Are you claiming that there is no way for maintainers to determine how long the update stays in updates-testing repository? If not, I don't see this point as relevant. >> My mails to this list is my "negative karma". > > But it's too late, the update already got pushed. It isn't too late to push another update that fixes the problem. Rahul -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
