Le jeudi 22 février 2007 à 10:37 -0500, Andrew Overholt a écrit : > Thanks for your thoughts, everyone. I'm glad rawhide stability isn't an > issue. I'm also in agreement that we shouldn't impose limits or > anything which will slow down progress bleeding-edge-ness. Actually, even though rawhide stability is not a huge issue (speaking as someone who's been running rawhide systems continuously since ~ RHL 6-7), there are lots of room for improvement. Most of rawhide pains are not difficult-to-diagnose stuff that requires days of analysis and would slow progress if we tried to avoid it, but trivial mistakes, incomplete rebuilds, bad interdependency tracking, etc that could be avoided with better tooling/processes. Taking care of those would make rawhide hugely more attractive for testers, and leave the difficult/subtle problems for test releases. Focus is good. Stuff that would make testers life easier: - better rebuild staging (do not expose half-rebuilt repos, wait till they're complete) - trivial stuff hot-fixes (allow maintainers to push trivial fixes before the nightly push when the fix is known and every tester complains about the same problem) - rollback of problem packages (put back the previous package when a problem has been identified with the new one and we know it will take days to fix) I hate to write this, but even though rawhide should be allowed to eat babies occasionally, this argument is often used to justify slacking on small fixes. Letting small problems accumulate only means there is little time left for difficult stuff during test phases. -- Nicolas Mailhot
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message =?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e?=
-- Fedora-maintainers mailing list Fedora-maintainers@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers
-- Fedora-maintainers-readonly mailing list Fedora-maintainers-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers-readonly
