On Thu, 2011-09-08 at 20:59 +0200, Till Maas wrote: > On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 06:42:56PM +0000, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: > > > As in components flagged as base/core/critical might restrict the > > maintainer from +1 his own component and require more stricter QA > > oversight while components that are not flag as base/core/critical might > > not? > > If a +1 from a maintainer is counted for the stable update threshold > than the policy could just be changed to allow maintainers to push > updates directly to stable. Because this is what will be possible, only > that a lot of stupid interaction with Bodhi will be required. But it > would fit the current policy that does not state clearly that any update > submitter is allowed to push a non critpath update to stable as soon as > the update received at least one +1 from anyone. We're going round in circles again, as I know I've written this at least twice in the previous threads on the topic, but: no. What Bodhi adds to the process is accountability, an audit trail, and an easy way to manage privileges. If we keep the Bodhi thresholds but allow maintainers to +1 their own updates, it makes it very very easy to look at a hyopthetical future problematic update and say 'look, you +1ed this update which was clearly broken, it went out, and caused pain to users: your +1 privileges are revoked', and actually do that, without affecting other maintainers who are following the rules. If we just let everyone push straight to stable, we lose that. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
