On Sat, 2010-02-27 at 01:54 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: > 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 The good is not the enemy of the perfect. A 90% chance of noticing a problem is still better than a 10% chance, even if it's not 100%. -- 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
