On Tue, 09 Dec 2008 04:55:33 +0100, Kevin wrote: > I think we need to be more careful with certain types of security updates, > and better let them get some QA even if it means the fix gets delayed. QA ... reminds me to ask once more: Where can I learn more about the thing referred to as "Fedora QA"? Who is it? What do they do? fedora-qa-list is dead since Aug 2007 and has never seen more than IRC meeting announcements. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/QA is in a desolate state and seems not to be connected to the people that call themselves "Fedora QA". Fedora has a serious problem with updates that are pushed out to "stable" directly. Originally we've had a guideline to use updates-testing for a few days. I'm also surprised to find discrepancies between Rawhide (just 1-2 weeks before F10 release) and F10 final. Such as a non-working PulseAudio. After every reboot, the mixer settings get messed up. Sometimes the PulseAudio mixer is not available at all. And worse, simple playback of audio files in Rhythmbox and Audacious (or even previews on the desktop) suffer from interruptions. Not so in earlier Rawhide. The pulseaudio changelog is not included in the package, and the RPM %changelog contains vague comments like: - Backport another two fixes from current git master - Backport another fix from current git master - Backport a couple of fixes from current git master -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
