Jeff Spaleta wrote:
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 2:16 PM, Les Mikesell <lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I think what people really want is 'updates that fix the things that are
already broken' but not 'updates that break something new'. Can you come up
with a way to 'crowdsource' this statistic? Perhaps an optional poll where
people could rate the health of their system and individual apps, preferably
tied somehow to the smolt hardware reports so someone could see how the
current updates run on hardware like their own or which update triggered a
flurry of problems. Or maybe this could be automated - but the absence of
problem reports for an update could mean that no machines survived to send
them...
Uhm.... in order to get "crowdsource" stats.. which will help you
prevent the releasing of updates to the crowd...there has to be a
crowd of people using the updates. How do yuou get feedback from the
crowd without exposing the crowd to the updates?
Every time anyone mentions slowing down the feature changes in favor of
fixing the brokenness there are a flurry of postings from people saying
they want all the new features they can get. There has to be a way to
take advantage of these willing guinea pigs (or is it canaries in a mine
shaft?) and let their experience determine when it is safe for everyone
else to follow. But, you either need an intermediate repository with
things moved on to the safer one at some point, or a client-driven
mechanism that knows how to request the degree of vetting desired along
with some way to accumulate the statistics. I'd personally be much more
interested in keeping an up to date test box running if I knew that
experiencing problems on it would have any eventual benefits.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
