On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 4:08 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Sat, 2010-08-14 at 19:44 +0200, Martin Sourada wrote: > >> The only thing I don't understand completely (but can accept without >> complaining nevertheless) is why this applies to *new* packages as well >> -- they didn't existed in repos before and anything is better than >> nothing... > > Same objection as 'nothing is worse than a broken package'; it's not > true. They could have bad conflicts / obsoletes, or they could be set to > run on startup after being installed and crash the system...there's > various ways in which an entirely new package could stuff things up. > Very true. New packages are black boxes, for which you aren't exactly sure what you will get until you start using them in production. Our reviewers are doing a great job, but there have been issues that have been missed during the review, which is quite normal, especially for bigger packages. As an example, I submitted the clementine media player package to testing on July 25th. We got a crash report on the 26th. This was fixed and a new update is submitted to testing. Then I realized that some files got compiled in without the "-g" flag because upstream overrides compilation flags. Another update was submitted to testing. Then another crash was reported on August 6th. This was fixed and an update got pushed to testing yesterday. Now for pushing to stable, I will wait another two weeks to make sure the application works reasonably well for people. As you might see, 7 days isn't even enough in certain cases. I would have preferred a 14-day testing period. Some people prefer 0. I criticized FESCo a lot in the past for being biased (especially for not calling the Gnome spin "The Gnome spin"). However I think FESCo did a good job this time in finding the middle ground. Orcan -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
