On Mon, 2008-07-07 at 11:37 -0400, John W. Linville wrote:
On Sat, Jul 05, 2008 at 02:56:30PM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> Three things spring to my mind and I just propose then here for
> discussion; maybe something good comes out of it in the end:
>
> - a karama of "+3" in bodhi seems not enough for a auto-move from
> testing to stable (or even worse: straight to stable if enough people
> tested the kernel and gave their +1 after the update got filed in bodhi
> but *before* it actually hit fedora-testing) if there are no other
> pressing issues (like security fixes). The kernel is a to complex beast;
> more then 3 people should be needed to give a +1. And a bit of time
> needs to pass to give enough people the opportunity to install, test and
> report problems with new kernels. For the latest kernel it seems to me
> that "to less time" really was the problem, otherwise the problem from
> #453390 would have been noticed earlier
Something is definitely broken here. I seem to recall beating the
drum for Karma in the not-too-distant past, when the required number
seemed to be up in the teens? Who's bright idea was it to bring
this value down to +3? My assumption had been that it was okay to
push these wireless bits because Bodhi would keep us from releasing
truly broken kernels. If we are going to use +3 then my assumption
is clearly wrong and my practices have to change.
Karma for kernel packages is a stupid idea anyway. If I wasn't
busy/lazy, I'd actually submit my proposal to have the kernel package
exempted from the automated karma rules altogether.
josh