Fabio Valentini wrote:
This sounds like you didn't read my whole post.
Because I don't want to make updates going from "pending -> stable"
directly impossible,
Well, several of the people who replied do want that, if I understand their
replies correctly.
I think your original proposal that only blocks the automated push,
requiring a manual push, would be workable. (I think autokarma pushes are a
bad idea to begin with.)
Still, it is more than what would be required to address the technical issue
at hand.
I just want it not to happen unless necessary, because it
drastically
reduces the exposure of updates to broader user testing.
It is always a tradeoff between getting urgent fixes out fast and waiting
for more users to test them.
> > That isn't that big of a problem most of the time, since
"fedora" /
> > "updates" and "updates-testing" repositories are composed
daily, but
> > during freezes, this leads to the weird problem that possibly
> > important updates get stuck in a state where they are available from
> > *no repository at all*.
>
> That is the real problem that needs fixing, and the fix for that would be
> for Bodhi to:
> * if an update is in pending → stable state for Fedora n, AND
> * if Fedora n is currently in a freeze (and ONLY in that case), THEN
> 1. push the update to testing instead AND
> 2. keep it queued for stable, i.e., put it into testing → stable state.
>
> But there is no valid reason to do that for releases that are not frozen
> and where the update can just go out directly to stable.
Why should updates for "stable" releases receive less testing coverage
than those for a pre-release? That doesn't make any sense.
Because the pre-releases are in a freeze that prevents getting the updates
out to stable and the stable releases are not. My argument is a purely
technical one, not a policy one.
Kevin Kofler