On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 00:52:38 +0530,
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>
> Let me know what you think
This should be split into two policy proposals.
One should cover QA related processes for pushing updates.
The second should cover expectations on what kinds of updates packagers
should be pushing to
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 01:20:21 +0530,
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> As opposed to fake security threats? In the case of the kernel, if the
> new kernel update we rush through without passing via updates-testing
> repo doesn't boot you can always boot back into an older kernel but
We can do that, b
On 03/10/2010 03:53 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>
> I would prefer to see something in action first. Proof of concept.
> A demonstration of how it improves update quality.
>
That's exactly why my proposal calls for it to be enforced on critical
path packages first. I don't specify point detai
On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 02:47:45 +0530, Rahul wrote:
> On 03/10/2010 02:47 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> >
> > On purpose. I didn't have any comments on them.
> >
>
> I assume then you don't have any criticism of the proposal since you can
> just assume the second part as a pointer to
>
> http://
On 03/10/2010 03:32 AM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
>
> This breaks any attempt at embargos and coordinated security updates -
> or, at the very least, includes rel-eng (how many people? who exactly?)
> in the very small set of people that would otherwise have to know about
> the embargoed update.
>
Hello,
Rahul Sundaram píše v St 10. 03. 2010 v 00:52 +0530:
> For critical path packages
> (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Critical_Path_Packages) :
> * Must go through updates testing repository even for security fixes
> Rationale: Expedited security fixes have caused some serious regressions
>
On 03/10/2010 02:47 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>
> On purpose. I didn't have any comments on them.
>
I assume then you don't have any criticism of the proposal since you can
just assume the second part as a pointer to
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_update_guidelines
Rahul
--
devel m
On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 02:40:31 +0530, Rahul wrote:
> On 03/10/2010 02:35 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> >
> > Again just a different wording of the existing Update Guidelines.
> >
>
> You left out the important parts which are about critical path packages.
On purpose. I didn't have any comments
On 03/10/2010 02:35 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>
> Again just a different wording of the existing Update Guidelines.
>
You left out the important parts which are about critical path packages.
Rahul
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/l
On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 00:52:38 +0530, Rahul wrote:
> Non-critical path packages
>
> * Don't blindly push every upstream release as update
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_update_guidelines
plus
A packager who "blindly pushes every upstream release as update"
apparently has forgotten to do th
On 03/10/2010 01:24 AM, James Laska wrote:
>
> Just a heads up. AutoQA describes the framework. We'll need to be more
> specific about what tests we'd want AutoQA to execute against the
> updates.
>
Sure but I don't know all the details and I am not trying to cover
everything but provide the
On 03/10/2010 01:12 AM, Michał Piotrowski wrote:
>
> Let's consider a case - there is a giant hole in kernel - and there is
> a remote exploit somewhere in the wild. Do we want to wait a few days
> or so when package will go through updates-testing? There should be an
> exception to this rule for f
On Wed, 2010-03-10 at 00:52 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Since it is the fav season for proposals apparently, let me throw in my
> Fedora/hat in the ring too. This only applies to updates to general
> releases.
>
> For critical path packages
> (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Critical_Pat
Hi,
2010/3/9 Rahul Sundaram :
> Hi,
>
> Since it is the fav season for proposals apparently, let me throw in my
> Fedora/hat in the ring too. This only applies to updates to general
> releases.
>
> For critical path packages
> (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Critical_Path_Packages) :
>
> * Must go
Hi,
Since it is the fav season for proposals apparently, let me throw in my
Fedora/hat in the ring too. This only applies to updates to general
releases.
For critical path packages
(http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Critical_Path_Packages) :
* Must go through updates-testing repository
* Only majo
15 matches
Mail list logo
