On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 17:45 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: > The assumption is that automated QA catches all possible breakage, which is > not true. In fact *no* QA will catch all the Rawhide breakage as some is > caused by the mere fact of things being different, which is intentional and > part of what Rawhide is about (e.g. the libata change in the kernel, the > change from KDE 3 to 4 etc.). Releases are needed to handle this kind of > changes in a smooth way. But automated QA will also miss many actual bugs. Yes, you bear some risk in using rawhide. There is no reward without risk. We can mitigate some of that risk by placing automated testing between the builds and the users. Some reduction in risk is far better than no reduction is it not? Would it not be nice to see rawhide reports without the huge list of broken deps? Would it not be nice to have a rawhide build update that doesn't segfault upon execution? These are the kinds of things that happen now, that AutoQA could prevent. That makes rawhide vastly more consumable than it currently is. Perfect is the enemy of good. -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature! identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
