* Debarshi Ray <debarshi.ray@xxxxxxxxx> [20080310 10:24]: > > Then why are you installing them? If this kernel was known to break things, > > then when it hits updates don't install it... not rocket science. > > How many end-users knew this? Was this announced publicly where > end-users, not developers or testers, could notice this? It is a delicate balance, weighing up stability versus always having the latest packages. To be honest, I thought Fedora would be a middle ground between the "extremes" of CentOS (stable, should not break) and something like Gentoo or Rawhide (half your system never works correctly because you're always running the development version or the latest Alpha of everything). This kernel update seems to be due to a foot planted deeply into the "new version at all costs" territory, damn stability and damn what users may think. I've rolled back to previous kernel. I believe occurances like this dents peoples belief in Fedora as a viable alternative. A *release* is not quite suitable for development experimentation, that's what Rawhide is for, and no amount of excuses and "it's not rocket surgery" comments will ever change that. If Fedora has the principle of "we don't care what users think, we'll break their systems whenever we like because we care more about having a higher version number on something than some other distribution, than doing some proper QA" - perhaps that should be clearly stated so that end users have a chance of avoiding Fedora completely. If I wanted to run Rawhide, I would select it conciously. Pushing known broken packages as updates in a *release* is showing real contempt for your userbase. /Anders -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
