Michael Schwendt wrote: > 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 think we need to differentiate, not all updates pushed straight to stable are bad. Some updates really bear essentially no risk, for example an update which just restores a bugfix patch which accidentally got forgotten while rebasing to a new version, e.g.: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F10/FEDORA-2008-11045 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F9/FEDORA-2008-11054 (and yes, the rebase to the new version *did* go through testing, the regression was not noticed there unfortunately). It also makes sense to push critical security updates directly to stable, like a trivial fix for a remote root. The problem is when the security update is not critical (at least not to the point where it would have been fixed in less than a month!) and the fix is very much non-obvious and risky, but it still gets the expedited treatment. > I'm also surprised to find discrepancies between Rawhide (just 1-2 weeks > before F10 release) and F10 final. The first weeks of Rawhide after a release are always a horribly broken mess, why are you surprised? It's called "pre-alpha software". Kevin Kofler -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
