Am Mittwoch, den 13.06.2012, 14:29 +0200 schrieb Stijn Hoop: > Hi, > > On Wed, 13 Jun 2012 14:15:14 +0200 > Roman Kennke <rkennke@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Am Mittwoch, den 13.06.2012, 13:05 +0100 schrieb Johannes Lips: > > > I think the reason for shipping the latest upstream kernel is based > > > on the fact that backporting would be too much work. > > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/KernelRebases > > > Gives a good overview and probably prevents us from repeating > > > arguments in the discussion. > > > > Ok, fair enough. The question remains, how can we avoid such bad > > things to happen in the future? Should I regularily try out kernel > > builds on their way to stable, and object to their stable-release > > when I find a problem? And how would I do that? (I.e. how can I find > > out when a new kernel is about to go to stable, and when to test it, > > etc) And what about the other base components of the system? > > (Although, to be fair, the kernel seems to be the most problematic > > one..) > > Check > > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/kernel > > for updates. Provide negative karma for them in Bodhi as well: > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/Updates_Testing Thanks everybody! I subscribed to the above updates/kernel RSS feed and will try to test kernels before they go to stable. Would it make sense to require more karma than just the default 3? Looking at: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-8824/kernel-3.4.0-1.fc17 I see that there are 5 oks and 2 denys, which actually point to bug reports, both sound fairly important. How does the karma system work if, e.g., update requires +3, the update gets +4 and -1, and this -1 is something that can be considered a release critical bug? data corruption sounds quite release-critical? Is there a mechanism that prevents the update to happen in this case? Roman -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
