On Fri, 07 Dec 2012 13:49:56 -0700 Dmitry Makovey <dmi...@athabascau.ca> wrote:
> On 12/06/2012 06:23 PM, Joe Julian wrote: > >> However many intermediate repos we put in place, these unstable > >> updates *have* to be allowed to go into epel-stable eventually. > >> Otherwise, we put epel-stable users at risk for unpatched security > >> flaws. > > My point is, we already do. If an admin has to lock their packages > > to specific versions to keep their system working, then they are > > not going to be getting security updates. > > sounds to me that there needs to be a clean procedure on promoting > from testing to stable. We have such a process in the karma process in bodhi. ;) > My opinion would be to let the users trigger > that in cases where developers are busy with other things. So if we > have foo-1.x.rpm in epel-stable, and foo-2.y.rpm in epel-testing and > I, as a user see that it fixes bug/vulnerability/deprecates/etc. > foo-1.x.rpm, I would: > > 1. submit request for promotion from testing to stable, > 2. ... > 3. profit? > > #2 can go as "need X votes in bugzilla" or "need N confirmations from > users" something tangible and simple to follow for all involved. Currently it's 2 weeks in testing or +3 karma. In practice I almost never see anything get +3 karma, which shows that we have few testers. Also, seldom do things get -3 karma. ;( kevin
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ epel-devel-list mailing list epel-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list
