On Wed, 2010-06-30 at 11:35 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > 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. Checks and balances are actually quite important - even if we're not always the biggest fans of them - especially for existing shipping distributions. I'm a big fan of letting whatever happen before you ship, then locking it down and making it tough to screw over systems that are not explicitly asking to be affected by a major upgrade, etc. There's also the "if you build it..." argument. I think if it's actually necessary to get these ACKs then they will happen. And in the worst case, you probably just need to email this list/IRC/etc. Jon. -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
