Don't put new packages through updates-testing

[Rahul Sundaram]

Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Jun 2007 15:25:04 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> 
>>>>>> The base functionality must still be tested.
>>>>> That is much too vague.
>>>> We need to sit down and define the details more precisely if we agree 
>>>> with the fundamental idea.
>>> Don't you fear that it would drive away reviewers?
>> I does raise the bar a bit on the reviewers. I fear more that we are 
>> driving away users by the mentality around pushing packaging and waiting 
>> for bug reports to arrive that the package is basically broken.  If we 
>> continue along that path more we won't be left with much users.
> 
> You're pushing at the wrong side.
> 
> That FESCO has neglected to pursue some important goals [of the past] is
> no secret. 

I am not sure assigning blame is going to be useful in changing 
anything.  It is a fact that we could do better in our QA processes 
without directly involving FESCo.

The community has lost control over what used to be a
> community-driven Fedora Extras. The new updates system has been advertised
> for many months as offering QA features, such as a repoclosure that would
> prevent broken dependencies from entering the repo

Fedora Extras had a rolling updates model which allows more freedom for 
package maintainers but it is inconsistent with what was Fedora Core and 
due to the differences in infrastructure and policies there wasn't a 
good model on the whole. There has been a lot of work merging the repos 
and the setting up the new update system and very few people are 
contributing but I do see improvements being made.

Rahul