Orcan Ogetbil wrote: > A package destroying people's hardware shouldn't be there in the first > place, because it should have stayed in testing for an extended period > of time. Thus this is not a valid reason, as the other ones that were > brought up were not. What if nobody with that hardware was using updates-testing? Then it'll only get noticed once it's stable and starts breaking hardware there. Or even, it might only come to Fedora's attention due to a warning from upstream, which may come in at any time. > But it is maintainer's fault to push an update to stable that would > *possibly* destroy people's hardware. He just can't know. Testing is not a magic bullet and testers will not have every piece of hardware ever produced. > Standardization, my friend, helps you in many aspects of life. What you call "standardization", I call "inflexible bureaucracy". > Indeed some changes are trivial. But if a trivial change is really > necessary, it could be done while the package is still in testing. If > you need one liner fix for an already tested package that has been in > stable for long time, then that fix is apparently not urgent. It may be a regression which was missed by the people in testing, maybe they didn't use the affected feature, maybe they don't have the affected hardware, maybe the intersection of updates-testing users and users of that particular package is even just empty. Updates-testing is not a silver bullet. > Please don't skip the fact that fixes themselves might be broken too, > even the most trivial ones. The more trivial the fix, the less likely this is. Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel