On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 04:50:20PM -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote: > Patrice Dumas (pertusus@xxxxxxx) said: > > > > Bringinig down productivity of good packagers for a few bad ones, is, > > > > in my opinion, not a good move. > > > > > > Fedora doesn't exist for the productivity of packagers. It exists for > > > the productivity of our users. > > > > Both are related (except of course for people paid to work on > > fedora). > > Not really. I use Fedora every day. The fact that I use it for packaging > things is a small small part of my usage of it. The extra 2 minutes or so > to twiddle an update differently is far far far outweighed by, say, X > exploding. Or thunderbird eating mail. Or any other variety of things that > could happen. That's not what I was implying. What I was implying is, if packager productivity diminishes, it impacts all the users since there is less packager work done. > > I fully agree with that. But pushing to stable rapidly may help > > correct rapidly regerssions, too. > > Wait. You don't want policies designed to avoid pushing regressions, so > that you can push fixes for the regressions you've given to people faster? > > That's... impressive. Regressions happen whatever policies are done. Imagine a specialized package that hasn't any tester besides the maintainer (though it has users), this was the case for most of the packages I maintained in Fedora. A user wait for X days to have a package pushed that fixes a bug. It introduces a regression which is detected by a user who uses the stable release and not updates-testing. Should the users wait X days before the regression is fixed? -- Pat -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
