On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 11:42 AM, Josh Boyer <jwboyer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 08:23:23AM -0900, Jeff Spaleta wrote: >>On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 8:18 AM, Josh Boyer <jwboyer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> I'm trying to figure out if we have a rampant "just shove the latest >>> upstream into all branches" problem, or if we have a lack of information >>> problem, or a bit of both. I think trying to quantify the actual problem, >>> if there is one, is the only way we're going to know how to address >>> anything going forward. >> >>This will require some sort of systematic review of bugs filed about >>updates during a release cycle or two. > > >From a quality standpoint, yes. > > >From a "oh my $deity, we are shoving more updates into stable branches > than we are in rawhide!" (hyperbole, maybe) standpoint, well not so much. > I was more looking at this angle. If people are doing updates just > because they are there and they don't really provide the end-users anything > more than a shiny new package, then that would appear to be wasted > resources. The problem with catching those cases is that there may be > no bugs filed at all because things are still working fine. But they might > have been working just fine before the update too. > > Tricky, methinks. Me too. What may appear to be superfluous update shiny-1.2.3 -> shiny-2.0.0, might also be the only way to get to *security fix* shiny-2.0.1 later on... jerry -- TBD. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
