On 3/24/22 21:18, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: > Adam Williamson wrote: >> In point of fact, no. Nobody can. It needs either more positive karma >> or two more days in testing, under the policy. As I said, the automated >> test failure is irrelevant to this. > > Actually, this is not a critical path package (or the minimum timeout would > be 2 weeks, not 1), so the stable threshold could be lowered to 1, then the > update can be pushed. > > In fact, I think I could even technically do that (both lower the threshold > and queue the package for stable) as a provenpackager, but I do not want to > overrule the maintainer. > > That said, I am still not convinced that it is a good idea that critical > security updates (and other urgent updates, such as, e.g., regression fixes) > cannot be pushed directly to stable without any karma requirement at all as > was the case a (sadly) long time ago. (I have been trying without success to > get this decision overturned ever since.) > > Kevin Kofler
YES PLEASE!!!! Right now I to use the following ugly workaround: dnf --best --refresh --security --enablerepo=updates-testing upgrade && dnf --best upgrade I’d much rather be able to do just `dnf --best --refresh upgrade`. -- Sincerely, Demi Marie Obenour (she/her/hers)
OpenPGP_0xB288B55FFF9C22C1.asc
Description: OpenPGP public key
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
