On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 03:04:30PM -0800, Mike Fedyk wrote: > This still builds a reactive system instead of a preventative system. > An only reactive system will not help prevent bad updates from getting > out in the first place. > > That said, adding a reactive component to a preventative system would > be a good thing. If a maintainer releases one package that puts > regressions into the stable updates repo, then the minimum karma > doubles on all of their packages doubles for 2 months or something > like that. > > So feel free to push directly to stable as often as you want, but once > you introduce one regression, you have to satisfy 10 karma on every > package you update. The second time, you have to satisfy 20 karma on > every package you update and so on. Fedora could as well just stop published updates at all, then no bad updates will hit stable ever. > Simply because we can't trust that maintainer anymore. How is it the fault of the maintainer when ten testers certified that the update is ok even when it was not? > Really, allowing regressions to make it to stable is so costly simply > because it has to be fixed several magnitudes more times than if it is > caught by people actually testing packages before they're released to > the masses. In general I have to more often experience the same bugs that others already found because of old package than I have to fix regressions. At least during a release, when I have to update to a new Fedora release, bugs tend to come back. But to prevent this I would like to have automatic tested instead of lots of error prone manual testing. Regards Till
Attachment:
pgpftMcA3kedZ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
