When will we stop shipping WLAN improvements ahead of upstream in released Fedora version?

[Josh Boyer]

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