On 08/13/2010 06:45 PM, Luke Macken wrote: > On 08/13/2010 01:57 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: >> On 08/13/2010 01:23 AM, Luke Macken wrote: >>> On 08/12/2010 07:12 PM, Orcan Ogetbil wrote: >>>> On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 5:57 PM, Luke Macken wrote: >>>>> - Minimum time-in-testing requirements >>>>> - Every day bodhi will look for updates that have been >>>>> in testing for N days (fedora: N=7, epel: N=14), and will >>>>> add a comment notifying the maintainer that the update is >>>>> now able to be pushed to stable. >>>> >>>> Suppose I submit a package to testing and it gets pushed. Six days >>>> later, I find a terrible bug in the package (or a user reports this to >>>> me). I fix the package and edit the update, request the fixed package >>>> to be pushed to testing again and it gets pushed the next day. >>>> >>>> Now without any further testing the package can be pushed to stable, >>>> which contradicts the purpose of this whole change in bodhi. >>>> >>>> I think, for packages that are modified during the testing period, >>>> this N should be calculated from the day the last push was made to >>>> testing. >> >> This would very unhelpful. >> >>> Yes, this was my initial intention. However, looking at the code a bit >>> closer, your scenario would currently be allowed, as it currently only >>> calculates the time-in-testing based on the first push to testing. >> This behavior is helpful, because otherwise updates would "starve". > > The only case for update starvation that I can think of is if you keep > adding/removing builds from an update before it reaches a week in > testing or the karma thresholds. C.f. my other mail - Such cases happen. Another scenario I haven't mentioned yet is packaging bugs. One day, a packager fixes one, 4 days later he (or a tester) notices another one, fixes it, 6 days later the next one is being fixed, ... ad infinitum. Now take dependency chains into account ... Ralf -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
