On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 5:10 PM, Matthew Garrett <mjg59@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, May 03, 2010 at 04:34:13PM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote: > >> You make it look as if I was out to break people's systems > > Actually, I didn't intend to say anything about you. My point was that > any increased bureaucracy has not been generated with the intention to > reduce the amount of fun that developers have. If developers /do/ feel > that their ability to have fun in Fedora has been reduced, I hope that > in the long run that that gets more than compensated for by more > positive feedback from our users and fewer angry complaints when > people's systems break. > >> * allowing important bugfixes to bypass testing IN SOME CASES (i.e. if they >> aren't too risky/non-trivial), in order to get very needed bugfixes (e.g. >> regression fixes) out to our users faster and make them suffer LESS, > > If updates cause regressions in functionality then that indicates that > our update testing process failed. The answer to that is to fix the > update testing process, not bypass it. > >> * allowing trivial changes to bypass testing IN SOME CASES (i.e. if they are >> important/useful enough) because there's hardly any way they can break >> anything, in order to get ultra-low-risk improvements out to our users >> faster and make them suffer LESS, > > There is no change too trivial to not require testing. The software > industry is full of examples of obviously correct fixes causing hideous > breakage. Most developers get to learn that the hard way at some point, > but it's still preferable to put processes in place to protect users > from accidents. > >> * allowing new upstream releases as updates IF AND ONLY IF THEY DON'T BREAK >> THINGS (with a very precise definition of "break things" I don't want to >> repeat again) and after sufficient regression testing and fixing, bringing >> both new features and bugfixes to our users without the breakage of an >> unstable distribution such as Rawhide and thus making them suffer LESS. > > Regardless of your definition, there were several users who felt that > the KDE 4.4 update broke things. That's a problem. It makes us look bad. > We'd like to avoid those users being unhappy. Agreed on your points made above. The process for testing updates will most likely never be perfect, but i have a good feeling we will get a good system. Otherwise we (fedora community) have a good and loud mob ;p -- LG Thomas Dubium sapientiae initium -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
