On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 11:27:04PM +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote: > On Mon, 8 Mar 2010 21:59:29 +0000, Matthew wrote: > > 1) Updates to stable that result in any reduction of functionality to > > the user are unacceptable. > > Unless the fixes contained within an update are _more important_ than a > dropped feature. > > E.g. if upstream has removed some "functionality" deliberately, and > upgrading to upstream's code is the only way to move forward. In that kind of situation, I think the maintainer would need a very good reason to push this to a stable release. We've arguably been there with Thunderbird, and we saw how much trouble that caused. > > It is the expectation of Fesco that the majority of updates should > > easily be able to garner the necessary karma in a minimal space of time. > > Your wording or FESCo's? My wording, to be voted on by Fesco. > In either case, I disapprove this strongly. I have failed to get bodhi > karma from bug reporters multiple times before. It is beyond my time > to pester bug reporters, so they would vote inside bodhi instead of > simply adding a comment in bugzilla. In many cases (ABRT generated > tickets), I cannot even get them to reply in bugzilla. I release > updates in return to > - problem reports found in non-Fedora places, > - crap I see in daily diffs I create for upstream projects, > - problems I find myself, which haven't reported by anyone else but > likely affect other users. > I don't want such updates to be held up by artificial hurdles. As I've said elsewhere, this is a problem that needs solving. But I don't believe that it's a problem that's best solved by allowing people to push directly to stable. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@xxxxxxxxxxxxx -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
