On Mon, 2010-03-01 at 11:57 -0500, 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". As I mentioned earlier in the thread, Kamil Paral is already working on exactly this in AutoQA, and would no doubt welcome volunteers of assistance on the autoqa-devel mailing list. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
