Perhaps different defaults should be applied (or possibly even required) for security updates -- particularly those of the critical path variety. Sent: Saturday, April 18, 2015 at 6:06 PM From: "Björn Persson" <Bjorn@rombobjörn.se> To: packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: critical path security update policy Jerry Bratton wrote: > Since you have a clearer understanding of these things, would you > care to take the time to explain why the update is still in testing > and why the fact that it remains there is unrelated to any Fedora > policy? When the maintainer Martin Stransky submitted the update he could have chosen to set the stable karma threshold to 1 or 2. Then the process of pushing the update to stable would have started automatically as soon as the critical path requirement was fulfilled. But since Martin left the threshold at its default value of 3 the update won't go stable until either a third user gives it a positive karma point or one of the maintainers manually submits it for stable. Björn Persson -- packaging mailing list packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging -- packaging mailing list packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
