Am 03.08.2012 14:54, schrieb Heinz Diehl: > On 03.08.2012, Reindl Harald wrote: > >> adn yes i installed the first 3.5 MINUTES after it was built on >> koji on a for me very important machine > > An important machine should only be updated (stable or not - whatever) > with a complete and functional backup prior to updating. New code > doesn't only contain improvements, but introduces new bugs and > flaws, too. please do not explain me my world :-) important for me is not important for customers if it goes down i take it to the office a make a dd-dump back my point was that i am testing many fedora-packages often long before updates-testing is seeing them and it doe snot help much if maintainers say "hm bugreport, however i push to stable" and YES the 3.5.x currently in F17 stable is a problem 3.4.7 for F16 is a security update so until someone knows what is going wrong in 3.5 the right decision would have been build 3.4.7 for F17 too instead psuh blindly 3.5 out - and after such decisions someone is wondering why people start ranting? __________________ https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=806548 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=805317 2012-03-24 13:02:57 EDT 3.3.0-2.fc16 2012-05-03 12:00:53 EDT 3.3.4-3.fc17 nobody cared and fixed more than a month later 3.3.0 was a few days later pushedto stable repos __________________ i have ALWAYS backups of all important things by having each machine twice on different locations and sychronous and after 15 years in this business, the last 4 running over 20 production servers on Fedora doing all dist-upgrades from F9-F16 on them and having not lost any bit of data in my life it seems that i know waht i am doing :-)
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- users mailing list users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
