On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 20:14:45 +0100 Alex Hudson <fedora@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, 2010-09-22 at 12:35 -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > Alex Hudson <fedora@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > I think there's one thing missing: some discussion about the > > > guiding principles about where these rules came from. > > > > Well, there is the Boards vision that this came out of: > > > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Stable_release_updates_vision > > Yeah; and I think that's great - I think possibly the Updates Policy > could use some kind of practical view of that or reference to it. A > simple sentence in the intro along the lines of "This update policy is > an attempt to achieve this vision" might be enough - it's almost the > yardstick by which the update policy should be measured. I've added some more to the introduction and pointed to that. Thanks for the suggestion. ...snip... > > Absoletely. Can you think of anything specific to add to the updates > > policy that would express this? We do have a Philosophy section... > > can you re-work that to express this? > > I'll try to have a think about this and propose something. > > I think also there is a flip-side to this which hasn't been considered > so expressly: the update policy is almost a brake on updates, but what > happens when a bad update goes through? I think there ought to be > something in the policy which says "If a bad update gets through, you > either revert it or fix it. The more 'stable' the update should have > been, the stronger the urge should be to revert it.". (By revert, I > mean go to the previous package, but probably with a bumped version - > not some mechanism to pull bad updates). Good idea. I think this might require consensus from fesco, but adding something like that sounds good to me. > And if we're saying that there ought to be that "revert" escape route, > then in the same way we have a Plan B on features pages, that ought to > be another factor maintainers consider: "If this goes wrong and you > need to revert this, is that possible?". If the answer to that > question is "No", i.e. the new version app does some > one-direction-only data conversion when it's run for the first time, > then that ought to be another factor weighing against that update > going through. Good suggestion. kevin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
