On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 11:12:11PM +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote: > On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 11:21:45PM +0100, Sven Lankes wrote: > > > > If Fesco is aiming at getting rid of all the pesky packagers maintaining low > > profile packages: You're well on your way. > > So, no, that's not the intent and it's realised that this is a problem. > We need to work on making it easier for users to see that there are > available testing updates and give feedback on them. This is clearly > going to take a while, and there'd undoubtedly going to be some > difficulty in getting updates for more niche packages through as a > result. If people have further suggestions for how we can increase the > testing base then that would be awesome, but the status quo really > doesn't seem sustainable. > Sustainable doesn't really seem like the correct word.... We've been doing it this way for many years now and it's not as if updates skipping directly to stable and thereby introducing more regressions is a bigger problem than it has been in the past. Really, the goal of this policy is to reduce the number of regressions as the problem exists and we want to cut down on it. The places where the policy fails are: 1) it doesn't address how to actually get more testing done 2) it doesn't balance risk of regression against the factors that are prompting the update in the first place (bugfixes, user requested features). Without those two pieces, this policy just outlines how to enforce that a package does not get into the repositories without a trail of testing having occurred. That doesn't provide any benefits to the packagers so it's not going to get buyin. -Toshio
Attachment:
pgpLI4nF6dYzX.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
