On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 16:20 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Jesse Keating 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. > > Those weren't "hot-fixes", they were fixes for an issue which wasn't really > a regression. They were also quite invasive and risky, very much unlike the > trivial fixes I'm talking about. The maintainer simply underestimated the > risk, maybe he also overestimated the urgency. But that's not an issue with > the process. > > Kevin Kofler > It is an issue with the process when the process allows for these types of updates to go direct to stable without getting any karma along the way. It clearly illustrates that we need a system that protects our users from our maintainers, as our maintainers clearly cannot do it themselves. -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature! identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
