On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 03:04:30PM -0800, Mike Fedyk wrote:
This still builds a reactive system instead of a preventative
system.
An only reactive system will not help prevent bad updates from getting
out in the first place.
That said, adding a reactive component to a preventative system would
be a good thing. If a maintainer releases one package that puts
regressions into the stable updates repo, then the minimum karma
doubles on all of their packages doubles for 2 months or something
like that.
So feel free to push directly to stable as often as you want, but once
you introduce one regression, you have to satisfy 10 karma on every
package you update. The second time, you have to satisfy 20 karma on
every package you update and so on.
Fedora could as well just stop published updates at all, then no bad
updates will hit stable ever.
Simply because we can't trust that maintainer anymore.
How is it the fault of the maintainer when ten testers certified that
the update is ok even when it was not?
Really, allowing regressions to make it to stable is so costly
simply
because it has to be fixed several magnitudes more times than if it is
caught by people actually testing packages before they're released to
the masses.
In general I have to more often experience the same bugs that others
already found because of old package than I have to fix regressions. At
least during a release, when I have to update to a new Fedora release,
bugs tend to come back.
But to prevent this I would like to have automatic tested instead of
lots of error prone manual testing.
Regards
Till