On Sat, 2006-02-18 at 18:54 -0500, Dan Williams wrote: > On Sat, 2006-02-18 at 14:28 -0500, Jeff Spaleta wrote: > > On 2/18/06, Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > I know, it doesn't work to well with update-testing in core -- but it's > > > IMHO better then no testing at all. > > > > If this policy goes in I'd want an established loophole that allows > > hot fix updates to fix brokenness that made it through the "testing" > > timeout without comment and not just security updates. > > So this is appearing to get more and more complicated. I'm not sure > adding more process onto this is the best thing; more process is (a) > confusing and (b) a damper on participation. I agree with your concerns and do not see much benefits. Why can't we have a maintainer must give explicit clearance to release a successfully built package policy instead of automatically releasing a package? That would mean, a successfully built package would end up in a publically accessible repo (or directory), but maintainers would have to explicitly give clearance for a package to be pushed to the official FE repos. > Though we don't want crap > packages getting through, is the situation all that bad now? Not "that bad", but definitely improvable. Ralf -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
