Rahul Sundaram <sundaram <at> fedoraproject.org> writes: > The general attitude in this thread (not you) and elsewhere that it was > ok to cause problems was worrying me. Thanks for looking into this problem. > > Rahul I am not sure that there is evidence for that! I think that some people were justifyably concerned that a package was released that had a major change to settings and user experience, and caused some serious difficulties including problems that gave large CPU and disk loads for a considerable and unjustifiable periods - (me included) until the workarounds were known, but that once this package was released and the knowledge and guidance on how to resolve the main problems was known then reversing the release was not really an option. However 3.0pre is around the corner (well you can download and run it independently if you want to), and there will hopefully be later versions that avoid the main problems that have arisen. By the way beta 4 did fix some bugs related to TLS connections that I had, and that were certainly present in beta 2 - so there were some advantages in moving to the more recent beta. It would also be a real help to users if the feedback from testing both prior to pushing to updates-testing as well as in the updates-testing phase could lead to some "user notes" attached to the final release that would guide users who bump into these kinds of problems when doing what would be a normal yum update, and expect things in a stable release to "just work"? (Question mark intended) I know that we can do "rpm -q --changelog foo" or those of use who know what we are doing can check the comments in bodhi but many users don't even know about these. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
