On 03/01/2010 11:57 AM, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
> On 03/01/2010 11:52 AM, Peter Jones wrote:
>> If you think this isn't the right way
>> to provide a safety net for package maintainers - what is?
>
> With the understanding that you're not specifically asking me that
> question, I'd say that I'd prefer to first try to automate checks for
> the most frequent update issues:
>
> * Causes broken deps
> * Breaks clean upgrade path between releases
> * Has ABI/API change (and is a Critical Path package)
> * Fails to pass any package specific sanity tests (as written by either
> the maintainer, QA, rel-eng, or qualified contributors)
>
> AutoQA has the potential to do this. I'd rather see energy and effort
> spent on taking out these low hanging fruit. If, after that, we're still
> having broken updates pushed directly to stable, then I'd be willing to
> consider a policy with an enforced delay in "testing".
I *absolutely* agree that we need something like autoqa to let maintainers
know when they've made an error with the (relatively) simple things it can
detect. I'd also like a policy in place to help us avoid situations like the
recent dnssec unpleasantness.
--
Peter
RFC 882 put the dots in .com.
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
