[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Do we want extras/testing/{4, 5} repos (was Re: Packaging review guidelines clarification)

On Sat, 2006-02-18 at 18:54 -0500, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Sat, 2006-02-18 at 14:28 -0500, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
> > On 2/18/06, Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora leemhuis info> wrote:
> > > I know, it doesn't work to well with update-testing in core -- but it's
> > > IMHO better then no testing at all.
> > 
> > If this policy goes in I'd want an established  loophole that allows
> > hot fix updates to fix brokenness that made it through the "testing"
> > timeout without comment and not just security updates.
> So this is appearing to get more and more complicated.  I'm not sure
> adding more process onto this is the best thing; more process is (a)
> confusing and (b) a damper on participation.
I agree with your concerns and do not see much benefits.

Why can't we have a maintainer must give explicit clearance to release a
successfully built package policy instead of automatically releasing a

That would mean, a successfully built package would end up in a
publically accessible repo (or directory), but maintainers would have to
explicitly give clearance for a package to be pushed to the official FE

>   Though we don't want crap
> packages getting through, is the situation all that bad now?
Not "that bad", but definitely improvable.


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]