Anders Karlsson wrote:
* 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.
That is in inaccurate picture which probably has alot to do with your
frustration over this. Debian's unstable and testing are completely separate
repos not intended to get flowed together at a regular timeframe. Fedoras are
meant to be very temporary, for testing. Updates-testing is a place where
things desperately need testing interaction so they can be pushed because they
are only there because they fix known bugs... not because its new stuff that
happens to be unstable and is not getting dropped into the primary repo.
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.
It was known to fix some bugs. Feedback was not provided about having major
breakage. What exactly is the proper procedure in your eyes here? Not push the
kernel which is known to fix bugs? I'm really curious.
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?
You can answer this question, see above. Do you want known bugs to get fixed?
How many weeks do you want to wait for them? Would you prefer nothing get
released until its had an 'adequate' testing, and never get released if not? Do
you realize that because there are obviously not enough testers this means that
*most* updates will never get released?
Welcome to CentOS (just go install it now). That is not what Fedora is supposed
to be about, at least from my perspective and why I spend my time with it.
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?
That is not at all what I said, or meant. What I said is people with nothing
but complaints after the fact are helping nothing. That does not mean they
cannot use the distro, nor does it mean the community is not *intended* to work
for them and prevent this. What it means is they are not part of solution or
prevention. Thats it. The community as a whole should have prevented this; yet
in this case it failed to do so. A situation to be learned from, not one to
pack up camp and run away from.
--
Andrew Farris <lordmorgul@xxxxxxxxx> www.lordmorgul.net
gpg 0xC99B1DF3 fingerprint CDEC 6FAD BA27 40DF 707E A2E0 F0F6 E622 C99B 1DF3
No one now has, and no one will ever again get, the big picture. - Daniel Geer
---- ----
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
