Patrice Dumas (pertusus@xxxxxxx) said: > > 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. Not necessarily. From what you state below about your (former?) packages, if your productivity was diminished by some random number of minutes/hours, it would likely not affect me, or a large percentage of our users, at all. > > 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? 1) You're ignoring any possiblity of improving the testing 2) What in the policy defined a number of days? Bill -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
