Jon Ciesla wrote:
How about this. Instead of trying to craft a policy right now which applies equally to all parts of the distribution. Let's narrowly define a prioritized list of functionality which we think is critical and deserves to be a priority when doing update QA.
Here's my short list
- Packaging Updating at the console (rpm and yum)
- Package Updating in the desktop (PK and friends)
- python-matplotlib
- xeyes
Your list with most likely be different than mine. But can we get project wide consensus as to the top 2 are really really important to keep working for 'most' people? Everything else aside.. all the good and bad ideas about how to do a top to bottom restructuring of updates generation project wide off the table for a few seconds. Can we agree that 1 and 2 are critical functionality which deserves extra precautionary effort to reduce the risk of falling over and dying for users compared to other functionality? Maybe more important than security? If an update goes out which could impact rpm,yum,PK and friends can we make it a policy that those updates require a specific level of testing, even if it means holding up a security tagged update until basic functionality of rpm,yum,PK is confirmed?
This is a risk management argument I am making.
Well made. +1.
But can we really afford to be so slipshod with xeyes? Next thing you know, someone with break KSpaceDuel, and then it's all over. . .;)
I suggested an time based approach on this matter on #fedora-qa.
Have packages stay in updates-testing for an x amount of time before pushed to update with the ability to be rushed through.
Packages that would cause system breakage would stay for example 5 days. Non system-breakage packages for example 3 days Security and urgent updates for a day them being flagged as urgent and mail sent to the test-list asking testing asap.
That at least guarantee an x time for testing and to provide feedback but of course does not guarantee feedback from testers any more than it is today.
JBG