On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 16:49 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote: > > Could happen also with security updates. E.g. the recent gnome-screensaver > security update visually corrupted the Fedora and GNOME screensavers. Rather > harmless, but in other cases (e.g. kernel upgrades) a trade-off is made > between number of bug-fixes/new drivers and regression, and -1 votes don't > have an impact. > > Making updates-testing mandatory will not result in increased testing. > Some packages just won't see any feedback. I claim that for most packages > real testing doesn't happen before they appear in the stable updates repo. > > We have the Critical Path Packages feature already. How about letting > Fedora users vote in pkgdb on how critical a package is to them? The > higher the rating, the more positive testing feedback a package will > require and the more testing the Fedora community will need to contribute.
I think this conversation is derailed by the "must go into updates-testing first" aspect. This isn't the intention. The intention as I see it is that updates must be tested before they go to stable. Getting karma in bodhi is a way to prove that testing, and can be done even with skipping updates-testing. -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature! identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
