Luke Macken <lmacken@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Critical path package[0] updates now require positive karma from two > proventesters[1], and a single +1 from one other community member. Even for security updates? My experience says that this requirement will prevent me from *ever* pushing updates. Case in point: libtiff, which is a critpath package, has been in testing with a significant security update for a week now. Its karma is still zero. When I get the "old package" warning in another week, I am going to push it stable ... and if bodhi won't let me, I am going to come looking for a neck to wring. The proposed policy might be workable if we had a surplus of proventester manpower available, but we obviously have not got that. I would suggest a timeout: once the package has been in testing for two weeks, the maintainer may push it stable regardless of whether proventesters have fallen down on the job. Or if you really think maintainers of critpath packages cannot be trusted to make these decisions, I would be willing to accept *negative* karma from more than one proventester as being an override. But it is utterly unacceptable for inaction to represent a veto. regards, tom lane -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
