On Fri, 2014-01-24 at 22:36 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote: > That's why I think there's reason to be very careful and sometimes even > prefer a +0 (with a comment) over a very early over-ambitious +1. > > And guess what happens in non-critpath updates after 7 days and _no_ > feedback. Packagers push the update manually. Sometimes with broken > deps. Sometimes the testing starts no sooner than when the update arrives > in the stable updates repo and the first real user becomes the "guinea > pig". > Good point. Raises the question why an update that links so many bugzilla > tickets can be marked stable automatically after a +3, which may be even > about a single bz ticket. See, this is what happens when we have a fundamentally inadequate process: an eternal tug-of-war between the tendency to prioritize 'safety' (in a very dumb and insufficiently granular way) and the tendency to prioritize 'getting updates out' (in a very dumb and insufficiently granular way). There are reasonable arguments in favour of both sides. I incline to the view that any time there is a situation like this - where there are two alternative ways of doing something, both bad in different ways, and roughly equally strong arguments on either side - it's not a great use of anyone's time to keep tweaking things to one end of the continuum or the other; _we need a better process_. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
