Jesse Keating wrote:
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
I am not sure that you are right. The audience for updates tested might
very well be bigger than the one for updates testing. For example, I
always started using rawhide at test2, never at test1. Test1 was viewed
as pre-alpha and just too raw for someone who wanted a system that
basically worked but had some bugs.
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
