On Friday 26 February 2010 14:32:16 Marcela Maslanova wrote: > ----- "Josh Boyer" <jwboyer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 08:14:13AM -0500, Marcela Maslanova wrote: > > >----- "Matthias Clasen" <mclasen@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > >> On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 13:16 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: > > >> > > >> I think banning stable pushes is the right idea. None of your > > > > reasons > > > > >> is > > >> very convincing. > > > > > >My packages are rarely tested and I forget them in testing phase for > > > > a > > > > >long time. Also fixing BR don't need testing. I simply need push > > >immediately the new/fixed package. > > > > If nobody is testing your packages sitting in updates-testing, then > > maybe the > > users of that package aren't hitting whatever you're fixing or aren't > > otherwise > > having other issues. What is the benefit of pushing an update if > > nobody cares? > > They don't care about bodhi and probably they don't know about it. Good point - it's useless to have package sitting in updates-testing if there are no users to test it because they usually don't know that we have Bodhi. Maybe some package rating included in PackageKit would be nice - for stable packages it's indicator that this package is worth to install, for testing package it would mean it's working (but again - who's going to rate it in pkgkit once installed). I think it's still worth to go through updates-testing with exceptions (eg 95% testing). And yes - lot of issues could be solved with auto QA. At least I try to test packages in updates-testing on my other systems (running different Fedora versions). And thanks to scripts finding my f*kups like broken deps. Jaroslav -- Jaroslav Řezník <jreznik@xxxxxxxxxx> Software Engineer - Base Operating Systems Brno Office: +420 532 294 275 Mobile: +420 731 455 332 Red Hat, Inc. http://cz.redhat.com/ -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
