Mike McGrath (mmcgrath@xxxxxxxxxx) said: > > My concern with this line of thinking is that you're asking us to quantify > > the unknown unknown, and define a time period of testing which is > > 'long enough' for us to catch all the unknown unknowns. This seems > > impractical, in as much as it doesn't give us any clear criteria to define > > success with. > > It's just risk management. I think we'd be better off acknowledging there > are unknown unknowns and try to mitigate them. Sure, but when you say 'we should hold off X period of time' in order to mitigate unknown unknowns, how do you define 'X'? How do you know when it's ready? All I'm seeing are appeals to gut feelings. We can all say that 'more time == more testing', but how do you claim 'good enough'? > ready. Unfortunately that's not the path we seem to be on. We unwisely > seemed to declare it ready before anyone even saw it then we ignored what > we didn't know as if we knew there were going to be no problems. The sad > thing is that's such an easy fix by making brand new features for core > components like this opt in, even if it's just for a single release. Having to support multiple boot paths for the system, making everyone who gets odd bugs filed against kernel, dracut, plymouth, etc. triage them isn't exactly an 'easy fix' - it *adds* complication to both paths. Bill -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
