On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 06:59:59 -0800, Jesse wrote: > On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 14:55 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: > > > The possibility to publish hot-fixes is most important. > > > > +1. Not being able to push those out quickly would really suck. > > What sucks more is recent "hot-fixes" which were even more broken than > the issue they were trying to fix. They were pushed directly to stable > and broke a significant number of systems because of a scenario the > maintainer didn't imagine or test. Could happen also with security updates. E.g. the recent gnome-screensaver security update visually corrupted the Fedora and GNOME screensavers. Rather harmless, but in other cases (e.g. kernel upgrades) a trade-off is made between number of bug-fixes/new drivers and regression, and -1 votes don't have an impact. Making updates-testing mandatory will not result in increased testing. Some packages just won't see any feedback. I claim that for most packages real testing doesn't happen before they appear in the stable updates repo. We have the Critical Path Packages feature already. How about letting Fedora users vote in pkgdb on how critical a package is to them? The higher the rating, the more positive testing feedback a package will require and the more testing the Fedora community will need to contribute. -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
