Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Hans de Goede wrote:
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Hans de Goede wrote:
If the fix is more invasive, then using updates-testing is fine
ofcourse, but for important, simple (obviously correct) fixes, I
would like to be able to skip updates-testing.
Even "obviously correct" fixes have caused major regressions. Your
packages would reach updates after sitting in updates-testing for a
small amount of time. What's wrong with it?
That small amount of time. There should be a balance between the
chance for regressions and the time spend in updates-testing. If the
chance for regressions is close to 0, the time spend in
updates-testing should be 0.
The chance for regressions is pretty much never zero.
No, but often close to it (assuming our buildsys does reproducable builds,
which AFAIK it does).
I regularry get crashers reported where upon debugging, the cause is obvious
and so is the fix -> close to 0 chance of regression.
End users would
very much be willing to wait a small amount of time if gives testers a
better chance to check for issues and improve the quality of updates.
What is the big rush anyway?
For non obscure crasher / application not starting bugs I would rather get the
fix out asap then wait a few days and watch dozens of duplicate bugs pop up.
Regards,
Hans
--
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
