On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 5:46 PM, Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi, > > at the FESCo meeting on Tuesday, everyone except me seemed to be set on > wanting to disable the possibility to queue updates directly to stable in > Bodhi. The only reason this was not decided right there (with no outside > feedback) is that Matthew Garrett (mjg59) wants to write down a precise > policy (which may end up even more restrictive, like some arbitrary minimum > time period of testing). > > He also noted that doing so "gives us an opportunity to discuss various > consequences with affected teams". But sadly, the people driving this > proposed change haven't used this opportunity to discuss this issue in a > transparent way as I would have expected (and I've been waiting for almost 3 > days!), so I am doing it now. (We really need more transparency in decision > making!) > > I would like to collect feedback on this issue. If you want to disable > direct stable pushes, why? Could there be a less radical solution to that > problem (e.g. a policy discouraging direct stable pushes for some specific > types of changes rather than a blanket ban)? On the other hand, if (like me) > you DON'T want that feature to go away, please provide valid use cases. > > Some situations where I and others have used direct stable pushes in the > past and where I think they're really warranted and should be used: > * A new package which doesn't replace anything, and which I verified to work > fine for me. It's clearly not a completely broken package and there's no way > it can break anybody's existing setup as nobody has that package yet. > * A regression which causes big breakage at least for some people slipped > through testing for whatever reason. We urgently want the fix to get out > ASAP. > * A regression slipped through testing for whatever reason and the patch is > trivial. We want the fix to get out ASAP, and the risk of breakage is very > low. > * A trivial bugfix (like a one-line diff), tested and confirmed to fix the > bug by at least one person. The risk of breakage is extremely low. > > If you can think of more, please post them! But even if you just agree with > me, please reply so the other FESCo members don't think it's just me! > Gr8, maintainers already got overhead by introducing branched F-13 and devel branches which made people to stop pushing updates to F-13 as we need to push them using bodhi and now bodhi also got restrictions. I think people will stop contributing to Fedora now after seeing so many policies and rules for maintaining packages for Fedora releases. - Parag. -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
