(→important hot-fix exception: new section) |
m (signatures) |
||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
== security updates QA check == | == 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. | Even if security updates don't follow Package update policy, we should make sure we check them at least after their release. -- [[User:Kparal|Kparal]] | ||
== critical path packages == | == critical path packages == | ||
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? -- [[User:Kparal|Kparal]] | ||
== important hot-fix exception == | == 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. | 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. -- [[User:Kparal|Kparal]] | ||
Revision as of 10:02, 2 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. -- Kparal
critical path packages
Should critical path packages be treated slightly differently from other packages? In what way? -- Kparal
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. -- Kparal