On Fri, 7 Mar 2008 18:28:17 +0100 "David Nielsen" <gnomeuser@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 2008/3/7, Jarod Wilson <jwilson@xxxxxxxxxx>: > > > > On Friday 07 March 2008 10:51:25 am Benjamin Kreuter wrote: > > > On Thursday 06 March 2008 19:29:23 Chuck Ebbert wrote: > > > > Sorry, we had to release with known bugs. A new kernel will be in > > > > updates-testing very shortly. > > > > > > Why did you have to release with known bugs? Why not just wait until > > the > > > bugs are fixed? The last three kernel updates broke suspend for me... > > > > > > Uh... If we waited until all the known bugs were fixed, we'd never release > > *any* kernel... :) > > > > Despite this kernel making my own iwl4965 unusable, I was fully in favor > > of > > releasing it. In theory, we fixed more problems than we caused, and you're > > always welcome to keep running the prior kernel. (I'm actually running a > > slightly modified 2.6.24.2-7.fc8 now). > > > I don't think anyone expects perfection, but when breakage goes so far as to > encourage users to petition against an update being marked stable we might > want to reconsider deploying. Not doing so reflects poorly on Fedora as a > project to users in that our update policy looks dangerous to them and > discourages testers from reporting problems since their experience will be > that they are being ignored. We have an official way to protest an update. You go in the update system and give it bad karma. If a package gets -3, it gets auto-unpushed. At the moment the kernel is not exempt from this. This particular update had a karma level of -1 when it was pushed. If only two more of you on this thread had bothered to use the mechanisms we have in place it would have been unpushed. So while I understand your frustration, it seems to be a bit out of place to deride the kernel developers for releasing something that people couldn't be bothered to mark as bad. josh -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
