Kevin Fenzi <kevin <at> scrye.com> writes: > * 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? Well, there's actual testing, vs. being convinced based on the apparent simplicity of a patch that it doesn't need to be tested. I've seen a number of non-working "fixes" that obviously fell into the second category, given that they failed in a 100% reproducible, environment-independent way, and would have only taken a minute or two to actually test. > * 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. Obviously packagers may have more trouble doing objective testing than outsiders, but it's possible. My opinion is that packagers should be allowed to +1 their own packages after a certain delay (1 week, maybe?) if it hasn't gotten sufficient karma from others by then, and they do actual testing in a non-custom environment (for example, maintain a VM with close to default settings). If a packager repeatedly submits +1 for updates which turn out later couldn't possibly have worked in actual testing, then their karma privileges could be revoked. -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
