On 03/07/2008 02:27 PM, Josh Boyer wrote: > 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. > People should file bugs instead of just posting a comment in Bodhi. Bodhi does not provide the same features as bugzilla for tracking problems -- for example this weekend we had one person in Bodhi posting the same -1 karma message three times in a row... -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
