Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 11:02:12 +0300
> Axel Thimm <Axel.Thimm@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> E.g. the packages are marked as security updates and whatever the
>> cause, autoqa, missing karma, missing time, for some reason (partly
>> undisclosed as mentioned in my post yesterday) bodhi rejects them.
>> IMO if the packager marks the package as as security update bodhi
>> should stay out of the way and allow a human to decide on pushing the
>> update or not. ATM bodhi cuts me off the pushers.
>
> Sadly, this is not practical.
>
> Several points to note:
>
> The various update streams flow differently. For a normal day,
> EPEL4/5/6 might have about 2-20 updates. It might be practical to look
> at all these for a quick glance. f14 (updates and testing) has around
> 30-50ish. f13 has around 5-20, and f15 has too many to even count. ;)
> It's just not at all practical to have the people signing the updates
> look at each one for critera.
The human making the decision should be the maintainer. That's what the
maintainer is for.
> We have had security updates that caused considerable problems.
We've had one such instance in years of Fedora.
Kevin Kofler
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
