On Wed, 2024-04-03 at 00:15 +0200, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: > Adam Williamson wrote: > > It occurs to me - maybe you don't agree, but this is how it looks to me > > - that, ironically, you and I usually argue the exact *opposite* side > > of this case, no? I argue in *favor* of somewhat-arbitrary delays to > > packages appearing in 'stable', and you argue *against* them. :D > > I have never argued against updates-testing existing or that all packages > should skip updates-testing. "Please pick up this new upstream version, it > has some great new features" as was done here is exactly the kind of changes > that SHOULD go through updates-testing. But if the maintainer has something > urgent to push out, such as an important regression fix or a critical > security fix (e.g., a fix for a backdoor like this one), they should be > allowed to decide to skip testing and not be treated as being too > incompetent for that (while at the same time allowing any other person, with > no other credentials than a FAS account, to +1 the package, allowing it to > be autopushed to stable – everyone except the one person most qualified to > make that decision). THAT is what I have been arguing for all this time, and > I do not see how this contradicts my position here in any way.
Fair enough. I think the rest of my post stands, though, as it was more about my argument than yours. -- Adam Williamson (he/him/his) Fedora QA Fedora Chat: @adamwill:fedora.im | Mastodon: @ad...@fosstodon.org https://www.happyassassin.net -- _______________________________________________ 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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
