On Thu, 2010-01-28 at 19:04 -0500, Sam Varshavchik wrote: > Jesse Keating writes: > > > On Thu, 2010-01-28 at 17:58 -0500, Sam Varshavchik wrote: > >> Steve Dickson writes: > >> > >> > I guess I have a different definition of crap... ;-) > >> > > >> > I have been on both sides of these bugs... So I know (the hard way) > >> > when you push something out that breaks existing configurations, its crap! > >> > >> If you need to run stable software, Fedora is not the right distro for you. > >> You should consider switching to RHEL/CentOS, in that case. > >> > > > > Yet we should be striving to maintain stability within our stable > > releases. In fact, when we fail to deliver stable updates that's a > > reason to investigate to see what went wrong. > > Agree, still, when something breaks it's not a reason to get emotional. > Stuff occasionally breaks. There's no need for an editorial, though, when > that happens. Put all the relevant details into Bugzilla, and post a capsule > summary in users@. There was a clear failure in this process, though, which was that the update was sent straight to updates and did not go through updates-testing. I can't see any reason why that should be acceptable for an update to a very popular package which manipulates data that is obviously important to people (their email). Can a Thunderbird maintainer please explain why this update did not go through the updates-testing process? -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
