* Andrew Farris <lordmorgul@xxxxxxxxx> [20080310 12:18]: [snip] > Again.. as has been stated previously by people with authority around here > (which I am not)... testers did not provide proper feedback on this kernel, > via the tooling in place for it [1]. Proper QA is not the responsibility > of someone else. It is the responsibility of the community. People's lack > of participation in how the system works are their own failure in this > case. So the Fedora process is; "If *we* break it, it's *your* fault because *you* did not test it" ? I stand by my earlier comment that this shows little but contempt for the userbase. > Fedora devs have *countless* times proven they care what the users think > about this type of situation, but users who only share what they think > after shit breaks are useless to everyone. Oh, I'm sorry. I thought that the idea was to have a three-tier system with stable, testing and unstable repos (to borrow terms from Debian), where the idea is to run stable if you intend on doing something productive, testing if you participate in QA and unstable if you like living on the edge. Pushing known broken packages from testing to stable is not acceptable, just because it did not receive enough QA in testing. Yes, you get what you pay for, but work ethics should prevent these things from happening. Fedora 8 is released, it is supposed to be the "stable" branch, or are you trying to tell me that Fedora 8 is still in development, even with Fedora 9 pending? If so, are users supposed to run Fedora 7 to ensure they are not being treated as lab-rats? I must be incredibly dense - so I'd appreciate a thorough explanation about this situation just so I know what to do to avoid having my systems sabotagued in future. If I understand you right - you are saying that Fedora does not want "just users" because they are totally useless and just a burden to the project? /Anders -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
