Adam Williamson wrote: > On Fri, 2009-02-27 at 18:14 -0800, Jesse Keating wrote: >> On Fri, 2009-02-27 at 17:28 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: >>> Yes! Exactly! That's what I want! An early-warning detection system user >>> base. Thank you for getting the point. :) >>> >>> If you don't have people finding problems, who will? As I said, >>> automatic testing can never find everything, it's just not possible. >> The problem is that you want to use people to detect the breakage, but >> the people you want aren't really willing to deal with breakage. Do you >> see a stalemate here? > > I'm trying. :) I know there's a lot more than five people reading this > list, so maybe some of them will see my point here. > > I know various other people I've spoken to about this have been firmly > on my side, and I've been urged by more than one person to (I quote) > 'JFDI' in relation to trying to get more people to use Rawhide. I see your point. But I don't think it's going to be a very popular religon here :-) In Fedora, we do have people building the distro. And that's their concentration. But we also have people building the individual components that make up the distribution. And that's their intended focus. We tell packagers that most changes should be going upstream because we are heavily focused on development of the code itself. We have a number of maintainers that are more than willing to give the packaging portion of their responsibilities to others so they can concentrate on the upstream coding portion. And when it comes down to it, I think that the focus on upstream development is a core piece of Fedora. So I'd love to see some of your ideas mature a bit and find a way to make Fedora better. But I don't think that trying to get developers to run rawhide all the time so they can work on getting X not to crash, their wireless card to work, evolution not to be buggy, and other things for which they are not working frantically upstream is going to work. It might be better to get people to run RawHide from beta on (and move that back to alpha at some point :-). Or determining what subset of Fedora-ans are primarily distro-focused instead of upstream focused and finding a way to tie them into the process of releasing packages. Or.... -Toshio
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
