On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 17:42:51 +0100, Kevin wrote: > What we "adventurous updates" folks > really want is non-disruptive non-conservative updates. No need to be > conservative as long as you don't break anything. It's not that updates "don't break anything". The less conservative, the higher the risk. The larger and the more numerous the changes in updates, the more likely they break something. Unless you have the testing resources to ensure a certain level of quality for the updates *and* all dependencies, which is doubtful. Or else more bugs would be found in development *and* in updates-testing than in stable updates, when *many* more users start using the updated software. Bugs slip through, even embarrassing ones. And apparently, one of the reasons for these discussions is not only that there is no policy for updates yet. But that high-impact bugs in some Fedora Updates have slipped through, because their package maintainers had been willing to take the risk, and that has prompted some people to try to change that part of Fedora. How exactly remains to be seen. > Rawhide is not a solution, as has been explained several times already. > > And many feature updates were, in fact, tested in Rawhide first! And still you can find enough users who blame Fedora because of its non-working releases -- and because of the many updates, which don't fix the bugs they consider the worst. Most of those users have not participated in the development period and don't enable updates-testing either, because they fear instabilities when doing so. They expect others to do that and to release a finished product that works. I dunno whether those 70-80% power-users are, who would stop using Fedora if stable updates tried to bring stability only. Rather I think we're missing the 70-80% power-users, who *would* use Fedora if it worked better out-of-the-box and improved over time with updates adding fixes instead of new risks. *That*'s why I would like to see me and other packagers retain the freedom to publish updates as needed, but not so they can produce a rolling-release in disguise that syncs with development too often. > When I speak for FESCo, I say so! When I don't say otherwise, I only speak > for myself! I'm not a spokesman! Right, not a spokesman for FESCo, but still a community representative, elected by parts of the community. Whether you fight solely for yourself or whether you believe you act on behalf of the community, isn't obvious. I think more packagers are more concerned about too high hurdles -- when releasing a bug-fix update (such as testing feedback becoming mandatory even for niche packages) -- than about a policy on what sort of updates (and frequency of updates) would be permitted *without* special intervention. > And FYI, I'm the only one who took your defense during and after the FESCo > meeting when those remarks were made about you. Well, thanks for any defense, but dragging me into the argument in a public meeting has set off the booby trap. -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
