On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 11:53 AM, Debarshi Ray <rishi.is@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> RHEL. We're a distribution with "First" as one of its main objectives. Our
>> users do not want to wait up to a month for updates!
>
> It is interesting how you redefine the meaning of "First". At the DevConf you
> were blaming NetworkManager for breaking KDE when they changed API and KDE
> could not keep up, while GNOME did.
"First even if broken" is a pretty extreme interpretation of "First".
"First working" is much better - and it fits with the purpose of a
distribution, to make sure that the various pieces are integrated
together (and to help upstream make it happen if necessary).
>> I also don't think such
>> huge batches can realistically be tested.
>
> So piecemeal updates to random packages pushed out at random points in time
> can be tested better?
Separate updates to individual packages have don't set up so high
expectations. An update to a package implies that 1) (optionally)
upstream released it and is happy with the quality, and 2) a Fedora
packager has used it and is happy with the quality of a package.
A update bundle implies the weight of "the whole project" behind the
bundle. Where are the people signing up to do the extra work to
achieve this higher level of quality? As it is, many individual
packages don't get any testing; if nothing changes, the individual
packages still won't get any testing, and the bundle won't be tested
any more than the individual packages either.
Mirek
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
