On Tue, 2016-12-20 at 10:32 +0100, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote: > You gave just one disadvantage of this proposal and no advantages at > all. Why do you think the above is a good idea? I, for one, do not > like > waiting a month to get bug fixes that are not security-related. We > are > not RHEL or Microsoft or Adobe. I'm convinced that having bug fixes > available as soon as they're ready is valuable (even if you choose to > wait before installing them). Also, as was pointed out elsewhere in > this > subthread, updates get tested only after they're released to stable > very > often, so it's also valuable to get the feedback earlier rather than > in > a month. Batched updates are something I really want to do regardless. Of course having fixes available sooner is valuable, but you have to weigh that against the cost of releasing a *botched* update. The advantage of batched updates is we reduce the risk of releasing botched updates. If we batch the updates together and release them all at once, possibly with new installation media, then that's something that we can QA, and that reduces the risk of a botched update. Last year we released several botched hawkey/hif updates (I lost count, but I think it was three total?) that broke PackageKit updates, so nontechnical users who don't know command line foo to recover their systems got stuck forever, never to receive an update again. Ideally that would never happen. Delaying updates by a couple of weeks seems like a small price to reduce this risk. Michael _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
