On 03/02/2010 04:25 AM, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Mar 2010, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>
>> Doug Ledford wrote:
>>> Fixes my problem
>>> Works for me (someone testing that didn't necessarily have any of the
>>> problem supposedly fixed by this update just noting that their system
>>> still works ok with the update)
>>> Doesn't fix my problem (but doesn't necessarily imply it's any worse
>>> than before)
>>> Causes new problems
>>
>> Yes, this makes more sense than just +1 and -1.
>>
>>> (which should, IMO, be an automatic veto of any push to stable, requiring
>>> intervention to override)
>>
>> But no, please no! While it should definitely prevent an automatic push if
>> the maintainer enabled that, it should not keep the maintainer from pushing
>> anyway.
>
> Well the way I read it, "manually pushing anyway" is the "requiring
> intervention" part.
>
> - Panu -
Yep, pretty much what I had in mind. Disable automatic push, make the
maintainer think really hard about doing the push anyway, and possibly
require that the maintainer enter a reason for ignoring a regression in
order to mark it off before the push is allowed (although this brings up
the anonymous person make a DoS out of this feature action that someone
else mentioned...so maybe make the regression be something only a logged
in person can do, or track source address or some other cookie and only
allow one new regression comment per user or some such, I'm not entirely
sure because the optimum way to do things here depends on internal
workings of bodhi that I'm simply guessing at).
--
Doug Ledford <dledford@xxxxxxxxxx>
GPG KeyID: CFBFF194
http://people.redhat.com/dledford
Infiniband specific RPMs available at
http://people.redhat.com/dledford/Infiniband
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
