On Mon, 2010-03-01 at 13:01 -0500, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: > On 03/01/2010 12:48 PM, Peter Jones wrote: > > I'd also like a policy in place to help us avoid situations like the > > recent dnssec unpleasantness. > > Sure. I'm just not at all convinced that if those packages had sit in > testing for $ARBITRARY_PERIOD_OF_TIME that they would have been tested > and fixed. But that's mostly self-fullfilling, at the moment I doubt anyone keep up with the numbers of packages hitting "updates" ... so expecting people to keep up with that _and_ test a significant portion of "updates-testing" is just asking too much. It would also help if we cut down on the number of updates for each package, and had better update descriptions for each package. So I did my proposal, which I think will motivate packagers to do the right thing (giving lots of choice to the users and a reasonable number of packages to test) and not removing the ability of packagers to do what they want (and have the stable firehose): https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Release_Lifecycle(draft)#Choice_.28james.29 -- James Antill - james@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://yum.baseurl.org/wiki/releases http://yum.baseurl.org/wiki/whatsnew/3.2.27 http://yum.baseurl.org/wiki/YumMultipleMachineCaching -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
