Sounds pretty sensible. We should also keep in mind that one size does not fit all. While core and widely used packages should have a more conservative update path, some packages could benefit from faster release. karma mechanism + feedback integration in PK looks like a total win for the latter. Promoting the use of fedora-easy-karma among contributors (kudos to Till Maas !) would be more effective than a half baked proposition (hasty decisions are often bad ones). 2010/3/9 Rahul Sundaram <metherid@xxxxxxxxx>: > > I don't see how we expect that for all packages to get enough karma and > while some of them can get feedback within the current infrastructure > and considering the wide variety of packages (niche libraries for > example) it is naive to believe that we are going to accomplish and > hence my counter points are: > > * We need improvements in our infrastructure (easy karma is one avenue > but Pacagekit integration and other ways to get users to provide input > needs to be in place first) > * We need to consider what we need as exceptions to this rule or more > sensibly enforce this rule only in crit path packages initially > * If a time limit is considered as a alternative we need to document > ways to escalate and file a exception if necessary and again I would > recommend only consider enforcing it for crit packages first > > As it current stands I am against this proposal > > Rahul -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
