On Thu, 2009-10-08 at 23:56 -0400, James Antill wrote: > On Fri, 2009-10-09 at 09:19 +1000, Dave Airlie wrote: > > The thing with doing updates for F11 is the regression rate due to > > lack of QA, I put Mesa packages into updates-testing that fixed a > > lot of r300/r500 bugs back at the start of F11 and it went into > > testing a few weeks later and broke Intel, I got 0 reports during that > > u-t phase about breakage. So now I have a package in stable that > > lets 3D works for x num of people and breaks compiz for y number. > > The problem is that PPAs/KoPeRs are going to get much less testing than > stuff in updates-testing, so if you don't think you are getting enough > testing in updates-testing I really don't see how KoPeRs will solve that > problem. The problem for X is we have multiple interdependent parts, so if we actually want to pull in an update we need to get X + kernel + driver + mesa + libdrm all tagged into a buildroot override. This is... slightly risky. Kernel is a particularly fun bit, since there are other reasons why a kernel update would want to go out; you don't want to break drm for Peter to fix Paul's wireless. If we were more aggressive about backporting the kernel drm bits, and there was some slightly easier (preferably Makefile.common-driven) way of getting a package into the buildroot before being in -updates proper, we could probably do without lookaside repos. - ajax
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
