On Mon, 2010-03-01 at 13:01 -0500, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
On 03/01/2010 12:48 PM, Peter Jones wrote:
> I'd also like a policy in place to help us avoid situations like the
> recent dnssec unpleasantness.
Sure. I'm just not at all convinced that if those packages had sit in
testing for $ARBITRARY_PERIOD_OF_TIME that they would have been tested
and fixed.
But that's mostly self-fullfilling, at the moment I doubt anyone keep
up with the numbers of packages hitting "updates" ... so expecting
people to keep up with that _and_ test a significant portion of
"updates-testing" is just asking too much.
It would also help if we cut down on the number of updates for each
package, and had better update descriptions for each package.
So I did my proposal, which I think will motivate packagers to do the
right thing (giving lots of choice to the users and a reasonable number
of packages to test) and not removing the ability of packagers to do
what they want (and have the stable firehose):
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Release_Lifecycle(draft)#Choice_.28james.29
--
James Antill - james(a)fedoraproject.org
http://yum.baseurl.org/wiki/releases
http://yum.baseurl.org/wiki/whatsnew/3.2.27
http://yum.baseurl.org/wiki/YumMultipleMachineCaching