On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 12:11:20 -0600 (CST) Mike McGrath <mmcgrath@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, 1 Mar 2010, 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. > > > > In EPEL, where there is a mandatory period of "testing" for > > updates, I almost never get Bodhi karma, and if I do, it is only > > because I have been aggressively harassing users to test and give > > karma. > > > > This has been my experience too. While I like the ability to have a > karma / feedback system. In reality it doesn't seem to actually be > part of our package release workflow. I will note again that 0 karma doesn't mean that it's not been tested. I run here with updates-testing enabled, but often only report -karma when things break. There are just so many things in updates-testing, that I usually don't have time or energy to +1 all of them that work. I have reported -karma on about 4-5 things in the f12 cycle and also actively asked others to do so, preventing these things from being pushed, so I don't agree that updates-testing is not useful. kevin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel