On 03/01/2010 05:52 PM, Peter Jones wrote: > On 02/26/2010 08:55 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote: >> Michael Schwendt wrote: >>> That would be a ridiculous decision. It would be much better to disable >>> that feature only for those update submitters who really have been >>> dilettantish enough to use it inappropriately more than once. >> >> Yeah, that's a good idea. We really need to avoid punishing everyone for the >> few incompetent maintainers who screw up! ... > The goal of the discussion in FESCo is to make sure there's an adequate safety > net, so that when maintainers make simple mistakes, they should have to deal > with them - not with exponentially large consequences and 4am phone calls. > > Right now, the only proposal for doing so is to restrict what can be released > without spending some time in testing. The issues that at least I have been trying to point out: * Is "testing" an adequate safety net? * Is "karma" an adequate means to "assure quality" * Is banning a direct pushes an adequate means to improve quality ? My answer to all: Neither of them are. The solution to actually improve quality are along the lines of * maintainers to acting more carefully and think twice about what they are pushing. * rel-eng to implement automated procedures to catch at least the worst mistakes (e.g. dep breakages, SONAME-breakages). Ralf -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
