On Wed, 07 Sep 2011 12:15:56 -0700 Adam Williamson <awilliam@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, 2011-09-07 at 18:38 +0100, Richard Hughes wrote: > > On 7 September 2011 01:02, Adam Williamson <awilliam@xxxxxxxxxx> > > wrote: > > > Is this a Bodhi bug? Or does FESCo expect voluntary compliance / > > > case-by-case enforcement of this policy? > > > > I'm guilty of this too; when I file an update that's not getting > > enough karma (after a few weeks) then I give it a spin in a *fresh* > > VM and test it out like any normal user would do. If this is wrong, > > consider my wrists slapped, but otherwise I think it makes sense and > > gets things moving. > > It's against the current policy. I've argued along the same lines as > you in past threads on this list, but I was on the minority side of > the debate at the time, it seemed; more people were worried that > maintainers would +1 their updates without bothering to test them > properly. As someone on the other side of this (although not strongly, I could be convinced), I don't think thats my concern at all... * As a maintainer you should only be pushing an update you feel works/fixes something anyhow. Shouldn't that be an implied +1 always from the maintainer? * As a maintainer it's easy to have a env that gets out of sync with what a QA or end user would use. Ie, you make 20 iterations of a package to test something, tweak configs to check something, and get it all working, but perhaps your machine is no longer setup the way a fresh install or upgrade of your package would be. Or you tested a version and then changed just 'one little thing' and pushed that and it turned out to break it. * Even the best of us would like another pair of eyes to confirm something is really fixed/working. anyhow, just thought I would toss that out there... kevin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
