On Mon, 2010-11-22 at 18:09 +0100, Emmanuel Seyman wrote: > * Adam Miller [22/11/2010 18:03] : > > > > As though swearing it will never happen is even possible to deliver? > > I believe that's Michael's whole point. > > The whole 'push directly to stable' arguement rests heavily on the principle > that an update is always better (from a QA standpoint) than whatever it's > replacing. The problem is that there's no way to guarantee this, essentielly > because it isn't true. I believe Kevin would say his position is that the update is better than what's there already *sufficiently often* that allowing unrestricted updates is a net benefit (the question is whether an occasional bad update is a worse problem than some updates being delayed for a week or longer in the case of untested critpath updates). -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
