On 07/01/2010 03:38 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 18:38:03 -0400 > Tom Lane<tgl@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> I see that libtiff.fc13 and libpng.fc13 are now showing "critical path >> approved", for which I thank those who did the work. > > Thanks. ;) > >> I remain a bit >> unclear about a couple of things: >> >> 1. Bodhi is showing both packages as requested push-to-stable. Which >> *I* certainly didn't do, and considering they are only at +2 karma, >> this means that the threshold for auto-push is actually lower than it >> was before, not higher. WTF? Is the idea here to remove every last >> vestige of the maintainer's judgment from the process? > > No. Please stop assuming everything in a negative light. ;) > > This looks like a bug to me... if you didn't request stable, it > shouldn't go yet. I can talk to Luke about it, perhaps you could file a > bodhi bug on it? There /was/ a bug with the initial release that left a small window of time where updates would have been auto-promoted even if karma automatism was enabled. This has since been resolved. >> 2. libtiff.fc12 and libpng.fc12 are still lonely with zero karma. Is >> the restrictive policy in force for F-12 too? I'm even less willing >> to believe that we have enough testing manpower to cover both back >> branches right away. > > Yes, it does appear to be there as well. > > I am just ramping up my f12 test machine now... but yeah, it's not > clear that we intended this to go live for f12 too. ;( It also wasn't clear that this was supposed to be for F13 only :( Right now bodhi treats *all* critical path packages the same, across all releases. If we only want this policy to be in place for F13, then I'm sure I could hack around it. luke -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
