To be clear, my email proposed two orthogonal solutions -- service packs, and an oversight body to approve updates -- and here Reindl is objecting to the later. We could do one or the other, or both, or neither. On Sun, 2015-11-01 at 23:31 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote: > refrain from updates may keep annoying bugs currently in Fedora fixed > soon and updates *may* introduce new bugs Yeah, that's the clear disadvantage. The service pack approach sidesteps that problem: everything still goes out, just not so soon, so everything spends plenty of time in testing. All the bugs still get fixed, just not as fast. (This also solves the problem of maintainers releasing individually -good updates too frequently.) > *who* if not the package maintainer which hopefully uses his own > packages should have the final say? some group of people not > understanding the issues really? The counterargument is that we keep seeing major version updates that violate our existing updates policy. Who if not a neutral party charged with upholding that policy should have the final say? Some maintainers who clearly haven't read it? If we have another party approving updates, then it's the maintainer's job to write an argument in favor of releasing the update: a quick summary of what the fix is and the regression potential. If the update gets rejected, the maintainer might really be wrong! and if not would have to try again to explain better. I think this would be good regardless of whether or not we do updates packs. Michael -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
