Coordination of updates and reading of bodhi comments

[Steve Dickson]

Sorry for coming to this discussion late... I still recovering from
5 days w/out power... 

Orion Poplawski wrote:
> Jesse Keating wrote:
>> Here is another example where maintainers need to coordinate more and
>> pay attention.
>>
>> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F9/FEDORA-2008-10000
>> (rpcbind-0.1.7-1.fc9) went into Fedora 9 updates testing on 11-22.  On
>> the 25th bodhi feedback showed that this requires selinux changes.
>>
>> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F9/FEDORA-2008-11122
>> (selinux-policy-3.3.1-115.fc9) went into Fedora 9 updates testing on
>> 12-10.  This was the build to fix rpcbind.
>>
>> On 12-10 rpcbind was submitted for stable.  On the same day, bodhi
>> feedback requested that this update not go out until the matching
>> selinux-policy went out to stable.
>>
>> On 12-11 rpcbind went into stable.
> 
> Yeah, this is what prompted my earlier post.  This also makes me wonder
> why I bother running updates-testing on some of my machines.  Seems like
> half the time I report an issue, the update gets pushed to stable anyways.
The reason I moved rpcbind to stable was I saw the selinux-policy-3.3.1-115
had been built and pushed to testing... So I guess I just assumed selinux-policy
would be push to stable as soon as I pushed rpcbind.... as soon as I realized
that was not the case, I started to lobbing the selinux-policy maintainer to
get the package pushed...

Another caveat was the people needing the new rpcbind package don't need or 
use selinux so I was getting pressure make the release.. After a number of 
days of waiting, seeing the fixed selinux package was available plus it
truly was an selinux bug (all rpcbind was wanted to so as a setuid() to a
non-root user) I decide to make the release... Pissing some people off and
pleasing others... (the story of my life! ;-) )

Is there really a clean way of handling something like this? It was
not apparent to me... 

steved.