On Tue, 2010-03-02 at 11:55 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: > My argument is actually: "It doesn't matter how good our infrastructure for > testing fixes is, it'll still not catch everything. Therefore, some > regressions make it into stable anyway, and we want them to get fixed (in > the stable updates) as quickly as possible to minimize their impact on > users. Therefore we should allow people to bypass updates-testing if they > feel a need for it." By-pass updates testing, sure. By-pass it without any karma votes, I don't think so. If you've pushed a regression, and you want it fixed as soon as possible, then it should be quite easy to find a couple people to test the build and give karma status before it gets pushed to -testing (once a dayish remember?) and thus it could go directly to stable. This is the problem with arguing about a proposal that hasn't even been written yet. You latch onto the one part you assume will be there that is the most unreasonable, and use that as a tool to bash the entire concept of the proposal (which hasn't been written yet). I'm sure there is a Latin phrase for this, I just don't know it. -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature! identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
