Michael Schwendt wrote:
> If you know that you would _never_ be happy with a test-update becoming
> a stable update, then either don't push such a test-update or unpush
> it (manually or by relying on karma automatism).
That was my point!
> However, it could be that you would need to offer a test-update for two or
> more months before you would get essential feedback that helps with
> deciding whether it's safe to mark it stable or not.
So we only disagree about the timelines. IMHO 2 or more months is way too
long. You should not need that much time to know whether the update is
broken or not! The big problem is that many months is almost
indistinguishible from "never" for all practical purposes. If you enabled
updates from testing, you're still stuck with no upgrade path unless you
stick with testing forever. The main advantage of putting strong time limits
on testing is to provide an upgrade path for one-time testers back to the
stable stream.
> 0 karma points is "an indication of potential issues"? Not at all.
It is indeed quite the opposite. It's an indication that nobody complained
(unless it's the sum of a "+1 works for me" and a -1 with actual issues), so
it means the update is good to go.
Kevin Kofler
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
