On Wed, 2011-09-14 at 00:25 -0400, Genes MailLists wrote: > On 09/13/2011 09:48 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > > On 09/14/2011 06:47 AM, Genes MailLists wrote: > >> Good points - up to a point - but lets go slow and think for a few > >> minutes - unlike the kernel which is very hardware dependent and > >> therefore may run on many machines but not all, systemd is no - or > >> should not be for its core functionality. Its a piece of software that > >> should run exactly the same way for all hardware - this is certainly > >> true for its core functionality - it does indeed take on additional > >> roles and I have not looked at the source code to see how well / > >> robustly it handles exceptions ... The chances of it failing for a > >> subset of users after being decently tested is way lower than for > >> kernel code > > > > You may very well be right but there is a very high risk involved if it > > fails for say 5% of the users. I don't see anything in the newer > > version that justifies taking that risk overriding the upstream > > developers judgement. > Honestly, if systemd updates has 5% of users failing on an update to > the software - we should dump the thing immediately and go back to > upstart. That is insanely high bug rate for core code which is (or > should be) pretty simple. Rahul was presenting a theoretical example, not an *expectation* that a systemd update would break things for 5% of users. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
