On Monday 08 March 2010 05:32:01 pm Kevin Fenzi wrote: > ...snip... > > Thanks for working on this Matthew! > > A small issue: > > - If the policy states +3 is needed, does that mean we are locking all > updates to require this amount, no more no less? This could be bad > for packages where the maintainer might want more testing. Perhaps it > should be 'no less than +3' ? or 'at least +3' ? > > I personally like this idea (at least to try out and see how well it > works). I do think we should continue to address longer term update or > pace issues. > > I would suggest people with feedback write up their feedback clearly > for this thread and avoid back and forth filibustering. > > kevin As a maintainer I have seen several of my packages sit in updates testing for over 2 weeks with no comments and no karma. In fact they sat so long I got nag mail about not pushing them. Requiring a karma of +3 to push is just not going to work by itself. If anything it should be 'An update cannot be pushed to stable until either it reaches a Karma of +3 or it has been in updates testing for 14 days with no negative karma." Steven -- ===================================================== Steven M. Parrish ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- gpg fingerprint: 4B6C 8357 059E B7ED 8095 0FD6 1F4B EDA0 A9A6 13C0 http://tuxbrewr.fedorapeople.org/ irc.freenode.net: Nickname: SMParrish Channels: #fedora-kde, #fedora-olpc, #fedora-edu, #sugar, #packagekit -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
