(→policy for QA ACK decisions: new section) |
|||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
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]] | 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]] | ||
[[Final_Freeze_Policy#Exceptions|Example on exceptions process]] -- jlaska | |||
== time spent in updates-testing == | == time spent in updates-testing == | ||
Revision as of 13:55, 5 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
Example on exceptions process -- jlaska
time spent in updates-testing
Adamw noted that it could be very interesting to query Bodhi for past time experience. How long it usually takes to accumulate most of the positive/negative feedback? Is it in the first few days? Does substantial number of comments appear after the first week? If we can answer those question, we can then set the required time in 'updates-testing' much better. -- Kparal 12:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
policy for QA ACK decisions
Similarly to RelEng placeholder in the Workflow section, there might exist a document documenting rules for QA to accept/reject an update. This policy would then be implemented by Package update acceptance test plan. -- Kparal 11:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC)