On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 11:31:05 -0500, William Jon McCann <william.jon.mccann@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > experience was a "red herring." It was also stated that the Fedora > project thinks a broken rawhide is not only a necessity due to lack of > QA resources but also desirable because it follows from our goals of > being first and fast. It was also stated that since we have a I find it hard to believe that anyone claimed that a broken rawhide in itself is a desireable thing. There are also different causes of brokenness. Some is brokenness within a package or small set of packages because of sloppiness. That shouldn't really be happening and is definitely not desireable. Some is caused by a change in a subsystem used by a lot of stuff without all of the dependencies also getting updated. This isn't really desireable either. Some ways of avoiding this situation have been discussed, but there can be conflicts between getting the new feature in, having packagers need to jump into action quickly to support such changes and doing the push without having all of the dependencies updated. > community to test rawhide and give us feedback when it is broken we > don't have to test it beforehand. It was also stated that we've moved Except this takes time away from people who could be doing development instead of testing. I have been doing lots of testing of broken stuff this past week or so, instead of getting some development tasks and personal stuff done. _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
