On 03/01/2010 05:52 PM, Peter Jones wrote:
On 02/26/2010 08:55 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Michael Schwendt wrote:
>> That would be a ridiculous decision. It would be much better to disable
>> that feature only for those update submitters who really have been
>> dilettantish enough to use it inappropriately more than once.
>
> Yeah, that's a good idea. We really need to avoid punishing everyone for the
> few incompetent maintainers who screw up!
...
The goal of the discussion in FESCo is to make sure there's an
adequate safety
net, so that when maintainers make simple mistakes, they should have to deal
with them - not with exponentially large consequences and 4am phone calls.
Right now, the only proposal for doing so is to restrict what can be released
without spending some time in testing.
The issues that at least I have been trying
to point out:
* Is "testing" an adequate safety net?
* Is "karma" an adequate means to "assure quality"
* Is banning a direct pushes an adequate means to improve quality ?
My answer to all: Neither of them are.
The solution to actually improve quality are along the lines of
* maintainers to acting more carefully and think twice about what they
are pushing.
* rel-eng to implement automated procedures to catch at least the worst
mistakes (e.g. dep breakages, SONAME-breakages).
Ralf