Don't put new packages through updates-testing

[Hans de Goede]

Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> Hans de Goede wrote:
> 
>>>> I'm very much against this, as it adds one more step to already long
>>>> process of getting new packages in, the current wiki page describing 
>>>> the
>>>> process divides it into 14 steps and it is lacking the add to comps 
>>>> step
>>>> (and in my case the update SIG wiki pag, twice once to add it to the 
>>>> list
>>>> of packages undergoing review, once more to remove).
>>>>
>>
>> Please respond to this very imporant point!
> 
> Adding that step in the wiki can be done by anyone and addition to help 
> improve quality are a good thing.
> 

You know very well that I was not talking about the adding to the wiki, but 
about the to large number of steps needed to get a package in.

>> 1) There will be no wide audience, even if they have updates-testing 
>> enabled they will not automatically install the new packages let alone 
>> use it,
> 
> If the package has a small audience then surely it can wait for a 
> limited timeout in updates-testing
> 

I'm not saying it has a small audience (it might) I'm saying that the 
cross-section of potential users and those with updates-testing enabled is most 
likely small.

And for some reason nobody is responding to my point that when in 
updates-testing a package cannot be in comps and thus is invisible to those 
using the tools we advice them to use!

>> Repeating myself, then first get such a QA time organized up and 
>> running and then, and only then, make updates-testing mandatory, if I 
>> get usefull feedback from this, you've won me over.
> 
> If QA can be bypassed then that reduces the incentive to form the team 
> in the first place.

I'm not saying QA should be bypassed, I'm saying that delaying packages for a 
week to allow testing by a non existent team is silly.

>>
>> Not true many reviewers review on the latest stable, it says nowhere 
>> that a review should be done on rawhide.
> 
> Review is about guidelines and nowhere in the guideline does it even say 
> that the fucntionality of the package should be tested. When I suggested 
> that it be added I got back a knee jerk reaction to participate in 
> reviews myself.
> 

Maybe that reaction was solicited because it seems that those making the rules 
seem to be disconnected from those doing the work? A typical case of manager 
syndrome.

>> All I'm asking for is to leaving this to the packagers discretion, 
>> isn't Fedora supposed to be all about freedom? Then why put me in a 
>> straight jacket.
> 
> It is not all about freedom though. There are several other factors that 
> influence a decision.
> 

Factors such as? I thought freedom was the great good which we are all working for.

Regards,

Hans