On Thu, 2015-03-19 at 09:44 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > On Sun, 2015-03-15 at 14:47 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote: > > Can we please "fix" those people, who hate bodhi so much that they > > feel the need to submit updates with a low "karma: 1" threshold? > > > > It just doesn't work and causes breakage too often. Broken > > dependencies and/or breakage at runtime. > > > > Keep in mind that it takes some time for packages to be picked up by > > the world-wide mirroring system. > > > > By the time such updates appear in the repositories, in bodhi > > they are marked "stable" already or are even on their way into the > > updates repo. That makes it impossible to test them in time and > > leave feedback. It's too late. > > > > Yeah, you want to rush out builds because you don't care. That sucks. > > I think it can be a judgement call on certain packages. For example, I > maintain the Review Board packages which almost never get karma from > more than one person (and that usually only for whichiver Fedora or > EPEL branch that person is currently deploying to). Even at karma 1, > most Review Board packages sit in updates-testing until the timeout > passes. > > Now, this makes sense for Review Board because it's a leaf package and > an application with a fairly limited audience. For packages in wider > use or those that are dependencies for other projects, I think having a > higher threshold makes sense. I agree that not all packages are the same; FWIW I wrote up some ideas about this in a blog post: http://dmalcolm.livejournal.com/5013.html ("What variability exists within proposed updates to the Fedora package collection?") [that blog post is 5 years old now, where did the time go?] > Hopefully, some of the new changes in Bodhi 2 will improve upon this > situation. I hear that's coming Real Soon Now. Dave -- test mailing list test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
