On Fri, 26 Feb 2010, Josh Boyer 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? > I think the problem there is most users aren't in the system and probably don't know / care about testing. They'll leave that to others, they don't want to be involved, they just want to use our stuff. > Also, doing an _update_ to fix a BR seems rather absurd. If there is no > functional change to the package when doing the BR change, then there is really > no reason to push an update for that. The same is true for spec file comment > changes, or any other change that has no real impact to the package at runtime. > I agree, and there's plenty of other reasons not to push an update. -Mike -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
