On Tue, 2008-11-18 at 20:24 -0600, Les Mikesell wrote: > > No, but it would be nice to have a way to avoid most of the 'new > brokenness' at times when it might be inconvenient even while others are > taking advantage (and their chances) with new features. The kernel > update late in FC6's life that crashed with many scsi controllers (and > was quickly fixed) would be a good example of the type of thing that > could have been avoided on some machines with some mechanism to delay > updates for a bit on the machines where you care. So again, why wouldn't people using updates-testing have caught this? Oh probably because the people who had systems that would have triggered this bug wouldn't want to use the risky repo. Which means they would all fall back to the updates-tested repo you talk about and history would repeat itself, but maybe then you'd ask for a updates-tested-no-really-I-mean-it -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature! identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
