From Fedora Project Wiki

Line 14: Line 14:


Should [[Critical Path Packages Proposal|critical path packages]] be treated slightly differently from other packages? In what way?
Should [[Critical Path Packages Proposal|critical path packages]] be treated slightly differently from other packages? In what way?
== important hot-fix exception ==
There may be cases when the update is not security fix, but it repairs severe regression/breakage and it is needed to land in updates as soon as possible. Should we offer a possibility to ask for exception and shorten the time required in updates-testing to e.g. 3 days (or even 0 days?). QA ACK should still be needed (to ensure the package is installable etc). The exception would be granted or refused by RelEng team, after considering if the update is really critical.

Revision as of 10:23, 1 March 2010

workflow more readable

Numbered list or some flow diagram could make the workflow section more readable. -- Kparal 13:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

mandatory or discretionary?

Let the policy be mandatory or discretionary? Can the package maintainer override the policy on will? -- Kparal 14:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

security updates QA check

Even if security updates don't follow Package update policy, we should make sure we check them at least after their release.

critical path packages

Should critical path packages be treated slightly differently from other packages? In what way?

important hot-fix exception

There may be cases when the update is not security fix, but it repairs severe regression/breakage and it is needed to land in updates as soon as possible. Should we offer a possibility to ask for exception and shorten the time required in updates-testing to e.g. 3 days (or even 0 days?). QA ACK should still be needed (to ensure the package is installable etc). The exception would be granted or refused by RelEng team, after considering if the update is really critical.