On 12/20/2016 06:27 AM, Tom Hughes wrote:
On 20/12/16 14:23, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
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.
Surely it's more likely that it just delays the discovery of the
botched update?
The only way it reduces the risk of releasing a botched update is the
the updates somehow get more testing just by staying in the testing
channel longer.
Which makes the question whether botched updates happen because not
enough people use testing, or because there are enough people using it
but they don't have enough time to spot the problems before the
updates get pushed.
Batched updates are valuable when testing happens with the whole. It
sorts out complex interactions between multiple package updates by
testing them all together. It's a thing that could be adopted whether
or not Fedora moves to a once-a-year release and it could be done in
addition to rolling updates.
--
Brendan Conoboy / RHEL Development Coordinator / Red Hat, Inc.
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
