On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 07:38 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: > James Antill wrote: > > >> I > >> want many updates, but I don't want to be the guinea pig for updates > >> which just hit testing, > > > > And nobody else wants to be the guinea pig for _you_. > > People who use updates-testing under the current system are signing up to > doing testing. Under your proposal, they'd be forced to sign up to get any > current updates. Get current updates => so they can be tested! > >> and I also don't want to have to selectively update > >> because it's a mess. > > > > Why's that? Maybe because of the sheer volume of updates ... because of > > packagers like... > > No, because updates may depend on previous updates to work properly. We > can't possibly test or support all possible combinations of updates. We can't _now_ ... because of packagers like you who want to release lots of updates with no or almost no testing! If we had less updates, that changed less things and required more testing before pushing them to users ... this would be entirely possible. > >> Do you want users of stable to suffer through KDE > >> bugs or be forced to use testing? > > > > Again with the "suffering users" because they don't get 6GB of updates > > a month? I think not, and I'm not alone. > > They're suffering because their bugs are not getting fixed. No, there's suffering because you are breaking their computers with your updates (which has been pointed out to you many times in this thread). > > mine allows people who want to get lots of packages to do so > > Only by using updates-testing => you're effectively forcing those people to > use updates-testing. No, I for one will not be just enabling updates-testing if my proposal is passed. Again, I imagine that the major of users will not do this ... and will be happier to have a smaller number of tested updates. You are _forcing_ people to use updates-testing because there is nothing else ... things can't be tested by the time they hit "updates", so updates is de. facto. "updates-testing". > > and those who have a working system to not be forced to test your package > > of the week. > > They're not testing it, they're receiving it already tested. Except that it breaks ... but of course that's their problem, not yours ... right? I think I'm starting to see a pattern here: . Kevin doesn't use DVD updates, so anything that needlessly breaks DVD updates is fine because DVD updates are worthless. . Kevin doesn't use selective updates, so packagers doing less work and not testing for selective updates is fine because selective updates are worthless. . Kevin doesn't use --security, so packagers ignoring security issues is fine because --security is worthless. . Kevin doesn't mind restarting KDE after updates, so any users complaining their desktop doesn't work after an update can be ignored. . Kevin likes lots of updates, and having them forced onto others so they get tested for him, so anything that provides more updates is good and anything that slows them down for testing is bad. ...if only someone had let me know that Fedora had become your personal distro. -- James Antill - james@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://yum.baseurl.org/wiki/releases http://yum.baseurl.org/wiki/whatsnew/3.2.27 http://yum.baseurl.org/wiki/YumMultipleMachineCaching -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
