Mike McGrath <mmcgrath <at> redhat.com> writes: > > And that's a people problem more than a process problem. If nobody > > tests it in updates-testing, then how is the maintainer to know that it > > is problematic? Certainly not solvable with even more repos for testing > > content... > > > > You let me know how three people in Fedora can miss a very subtle Firefox > memory leak. How many people would need to use updates testing before the > thunderbird indexing problem is caught? How long would it need to stay > there? In this case updates-testing theory just does not match reality. > > The status quo is broken, doing nothing will keep it that way. > > -Mike > Actually I don't think the blame is directly layable at the feet of either the Fedora maintainer (who pushed an update with reasonable reports in bodhi according to normal practice), nor the Fedora process which should have worked if no poor upstream changes were made - but in fact this shows up the vulnerability of Fedora to packages which have bad decisions made upstream. In this case the upstream developers made a really bad decision to foist the GLODA change and the smart folder change on users who installed this beta, instead of taking the safer, and in my view better, decision to bring in these new features, but to leave them switched off by default, but to advertise the availability of these new features big time, and then let this simmer for a while and wait for any bad user feedback. Only if the new features were then shown to be acceptable should they be enabled in a future update by default. In this case, going that route would have shown that the new features were certainly not acceptable to all users, and in particular users with large amounts of stored mail with multiple accounts. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
