On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 13:26:53 -0700, Adam wrote: > (push some Xorg changes we'd never be happy about putting > in stable into it). If you know that you would _never_ be happy with a test-update becoming a stable update, then either don't push such a test-update or unpush it (manually or by relying on karma automatism). However, it could be that you would need to offer a test-update for two or more months before you would get essential feedback that helps with deciding whether it's safe to mark it stable or not. Especially with regard to version upgrades: if you know the current package release doesn't suffer from any bugs (as tracked via bugzilla) and a test-update to a new version may cause regression, why rush and mark it stable without sufficient feedback? Why force users of stable updates to become guinea pigs? > I also agree with Kevin - maybe we don't need to > *disallow* updates sitting in -testing for a long time, but updates > sitting there for a long time is an indication of potential issues and > it should be flagged for tracking. 0 karma points is "an indication of potential issues"? Not at all. 0 or +1 karma points after a month doesn't make it safe either to mark it stable. It depends on _who_ contributed _what_ sorts of tests. It may be that another important tester finds a show-stopper issue three weeks later. Sometimes we only win a new tester, who would normally avoid updates-testing like the plague, for a specific test-update while communicating within a bugzilla ticket. Sometimes not even that, and all you can get is to have a reporter download a build from koji. Now tell me how to attract more testers to try updates-testing and enable it by default on one machine, perhaps a personal desktop. If we continue to offer test-updates which may "eat babies", as some of you call it, you can't win much. Not a big problem for kernel test-updates, which aren't booted by default, but a threat nevertheless. More of a problem for any of the other packages which get replaced - and there's a steady flood of packages in updates-testing. One can hear again and again from users that they don't like "more bleeding-edge" than "stable updates" and that they expect the package maintainers to give certain guarantees for the "stability" of updates they offer. No guarantees => let the community contribute testing. No testing => keep the test-update in updates-testing. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
