New packages can break existing systems. Leak ram, eat filesystems, leak personal data, leak root, dos a system, etc...
--
Sent from my Android phone. Please excuse my brevity, lack of trimming, and top posting.
"Martin Sourada" <martin.sourada@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>On Sat, 2010-08-14 at 19:14 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> Martin Sourada wrote:
>> > Seeing your mail, you more or less agree with this. So why exactly are
>> > you against the policy explicitly requiring either positive karma or
>> > some minimal time in testing (setting aside some current shrotcommings
>> > of the implementation like resetting the timer on bug update when you
>> > just add/remove fixed bug or edit update comment)?
>>
>> There are changes needing a lot (2+ weeks) of testing (e.g. upstream minor
>> feature releases, such as Qt 4.n+1). There are changes needing some (~1
>> week, at most 2, of) testing (e.g. upstream bugfix releases / point
>> releases). There are changes needing no testing (e.g. trivial one-line fixes
>> for a regression in a previous update which need to go out ASAP to fix the
>> regression). The maintainer is best qualified to know which applies. The
>> maintainer is also much better at judging the quality of his updates than
>> some semi-arbitrary number computed out of tester feedback ("karma"). (He
>> knows what he changed, he has access to feedback from other places, e.g.
>> Bugzilla, IRC, mailing lists, upstream's bug tracker, other distros' bug
>> trackers, anonymous Bodhi feedback not counted towards karma etc. – all
>> places which can confirm a single patch to fix a reported issue –, he has
>> experience from previous updates, and he is able to make an educated
>> judgement call based on all that information.) We are very far from software
>> being more intelligent than people, so we should let people decide, not
>> software. And the people should be able to decide on a case by case basis,
>> not some inflexible bureaucratic policy (which is so dumb that it can even
>> be enforced by software).
>>
>Hrm, I see that software as means to gain feedback for my updates --
>noone can be 100% sure his changes are bugfree, otherwise we would have
>bugfree software. In the ideal case scenario (which we are far from)
>this would be used to catch the regression *before* making that update
>stable in the first place. Testers are also giving reasons why they put
>-1 karma if they did so. IMHO each change requires at least minimal
>testing (and yes, finding at least +1 karma point for one line fix
>should not be very hard).
>
>The only thing I don't understand completely (but can accept without
>complaining nevertheless) is why this applies to *new* packages as well
>-- they didn't existed in repos before and anything is better than
>nothing...
>
>Martin
>--
>devel mailing list
>devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
