On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 11:14:50AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Fri, 2014-01-24 at 19:26 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote: > > > > * That update made it out to the stable updates! In other words, the > > > draconian Update Policies that were enacted in a vain attempt to prevent > > > such issues from happening utterly failed at catching this bug. > > > > Those policies are not "draconian" enough [1]. On erroneous belief that > > a +1 from three different testers would mean that the update has seen > > enough testing, the test update has been published with the default karma > > threshold of +3. The testers have failed. It's too simple for testers to > > rush through the voting in bodhi without testing the updates > > painstakingly. "The faster the better" has lead to a fatal mistake in > > this case. > > I think that's being unnecessarily harsh on the testers. It's not at all > obvious to anyone that you ought to test update/install of another > package in order to validate an update to selinux-policy-targeted . > Hell, I don't do that. Doesn't / can't AutoQA (or whatever we're calling it these days) pick up the new package, install it in a VM, and run through some automated tests: - Does Fedora still boot with this package added? - Does GNOME still come up? - Does yum still work? At least the third one might have automatically found this bug. Rich. -- Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones virt-df lists disk usage of guests without needing to install any software inside the virtual machine. Supports Linux and Windows. http://people.redhat.com/~rjones/virt-df/ -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
