On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 03:54:02PM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > b. Given a, I would say people should stop posting to this thread. If > you have a better updates policy in mind, perhaps you could draft up a > proposal for what you think it should be? Or wait for a real proposal > to comment on? Since AutoQA is supposed to to behaviour testing of packages eventually, how about a policy that says: A stable update to Fedora must pass all AutoQA tests. Then the granularity of stability can be adjusted by adding tests to AutoQA. And I hope that only reasonable tests will be added to AutoQA, e.g. a test that just ensures that a packages stays at version X would not be one. But if it ensures that e.g. "yum-builddep foo.src.rpm" installs all build deps of foo, it would be a useful test. > - I think educating our maintainers to be more carefull or get more > testing feedback has not worked so far, nor is it likely to moving > forward. We simply seem to lack the communications channel to do so. If the maintainer receive more testing feedback, they probably won't ignore it. > - I think perhaps a more lifecycle like thing could help our users know > what to expect. Currently, they don't. They could get a major version > bump at any time, in a older "stable" release. I have talked to users > who are are f11 still because they think it will be "most stable" but > then are dismayed with how many updates they get. Pushing less updates to F(current-1) is probably something many maintainers can live with. But I have also heard of people using F(current-1) and feeling like secondary users, because they did not get the updates that F(current) got. > - Perhaps we could look at ways to make rawhide more day to day > friendly. I think the autoqa stuff might help here. If those people > that needed the very newest version of everything could use rawhide, > perhaps we could target the stable releases more to those that want > them. There will always be updates in Rawhide that are not meant to be consumed directly or without manual intervention. Regards Till
Attachment:
pgpQilevSpqBu.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
