On Wed, 2008-12-10 at 18:51 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: > On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 11:48:04PM +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > >On Wed, 2008-12-10 at 23:20 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > >> Le mercredi 10 décembre 2008 à 22:46 +0100, Ralf Corsepius a écrit : > >> > >> > ... then wait until your immature and hardly tested "new code" from > >> > "rawhide" automatically becomes the "release". > >> > > >> > FC10 clearly demonstrates this effect. > >> > >> I don't think this is fair to releng and the QA teams. > >Why is this not fair? The technical facts on FC10 speak for themselves: > >Rawhide and Fedora's release procedures as means for "Fedora release > >preparation testing" don't work out. > > Examples of this? Some random examples, which I have been hit myself: gnome-session: Currently doesn't provide "session save/restore" Official excuse: in process of a rewrite. IMO, the current status should never have been released. evolution: Suffers from many tiny issues, e.g.: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=472640 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=472638 How could these escape a QA? The FC10 version is bugged as evolution had been in its worst times. mkinitrd/kernel: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470628 Minor issue, however it escapes me how such a highly visible bug this could escape a "Fedora's testing group". PackageKit: A trouble area of its own. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=469293 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=469324 IMO, PackageKit is too immature and has been prematurely rushed out. To me, * the gnome-session, evolution and PackageKit examples are cases demonstrating how "bugged SW", which should never have been made part of a release, migrates from rawhide into releases. * all 4 cases are demonstrating that rawhide as a release testing platform doesn't work out. Wrt. rel-eng: Besides the numerous NEVR issues between Fedora release, which FC10 (as usual) suffers from, this time another kind of repo screw up took place: updates/10 contains packages with an older NEVR than Everything and Fedora, e.g.: releases/10/Everything/i386/os/Packages/smolt-1.1.1.1-9.fc10.noarch.rpm releases/10/Everything/i386/os/Packages/smolt-server-1.1.1.1-9.fc10.noarch.rpm releases/10/Everything/i386/os/Packages/kazehakase-base-0.5.6-1.fc10.1.i386.rpm releases/10/Everything/i386/os/Packages/kazehakase-webkit-0.5.6-1.fc10.1.i386.rpm releases/10/Everything/i386/os/Packages/kazehakase-hyperestraier-0.5.6-1.fc10.1.i386.rpm releases/10/Everything/i386/os/Packages/kazehakase-0.5.6-1.fc10.1.i386.rpm releases/10/Everything/i386/os/Packages/smolt-firstboot-1.1.1.1-9.fc10.noarch.rpm releases/10/Everything/i386/os/Packages/kazehakase-ruby-0.5.6-1.fc10.1.i386.rpm releases/10/Everything/i386/os/Packages/smolt-gui-1.1.1.1-9.fc10.noarch.rpm updates/10/i386/kazehakase-webkit-0.5.6-1.fc10.i386.rpm updates/10/i386/kazehakase-hyperestraier-0.5.6-1.fc10.i386.rpm updates/10/i386/smolt-firstboot-1.1.1.1-8.fc10.noarch.rpm updates/10/i386/smolt-server-1.1.1.1-8.fc10.noarch.rpm updates/10/i386/smolt-1.1.1.1-8.fc10.noarch.rpm updates/10/i386/kazehakase-0.5.6-1.fc10.i386.rpm updates/10/i386/kazehakase-base-0.5.6-1.fc10.i386.rpm updates/10/i386/smolt-gui-1.1.1.1-8.fc10.noarch.rpm updates/10/i386/kazehakase-ruby-0.5.6-1.fc10.i386.rpm Admitted, this is a minor issue without impact on users, nevertheless it raises questions. > Do you have bug report numbers, regression cases, > or any sort of data saying things are getting worse from a release > stability perspective? > > I'm not saying you're wrong, but statements without facts are hard > to swallow. If we're sucking it up, point us to where and how so > things can be fixed. I have F10 on a number of machines and it's > working fine, so my personal experience may be different than yours. Let me put it this way: I have been running machines equipped with FC10 since ca. Beta2, and am busy filing bugs since then. I haven't been bookkeeping, but it's in the order of 0.5-1 per day. Ralf -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
