Adam Williamson wrote:
> It occurs to me - maybe you don't agree, but this is how it looks to me
> - that, ironically, you and I usually argue the exact *opposite* side
> of this case, no? I argue in *favor* of somewhat-arbitrary delays to
> packages appearing in 'stable', and you argue *against* them. :D
I have never argued against updates-testing existing or that all packages
should skip updates-testing. "Please pick up this new upstream version, it
has some great new features" as was done here is exactly the kind of changes
that SHOULD go through updates-testing. But if the maintainer has something
urgent to push out, such as an important regression fix or a critical
security fix (e.g., a fix for a backdoor like this one), they should be
allowed to decide to skip testing and not be treated as being too
incompetent for that (while at the same time allowing any other person, with
no other credentials than a FAS account, to +1 the package, allowing it to
be autopushed to stable – everyone except the one person most qualified to
make that decision). THAT is what I have been arguing for all this time, and
I do not see how this contradicts my position here in any way.
Kevin Kofler
--
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
