Le lundi 25 octobre 2004 à 12:08 -0400, Paul Iadonisi a écrit : > On Mon, 2004-10-25 at 10:06, Matias Féliciano wrote: > > [snip] > > > Please... I not chose to *ignore* those warnings. > > You are ignoring that using a test release is the _best_ way to test it > > and be fully happy with the finale release when it's out. The point is > > not to be happy with a test release but with the finale release. > > > > The propose of test release can be see as : > > - find stupid boys (like me), or girls, which use test release and file > > bug report. > > - provide some support (bugfix, mailing, etc) to not make it a total > > disaster. > > Well, I suppose that's an okay way of looking at it, but methinks you > need to make up your mind. Are you ignoring the warnings not to use > this on a 'critical' system, or is your desktop that you have it > installed on *not* a critical system. My desktop is a critical system for _me_. It's up to me to decide what to install on it (and thank to Red Hat to inform me about what this imply). btw, I have not replace FC2 by FC3T2. First I install FC3T2 along my rock solid FC2. I test FC3T2 and when I have the feeling that FC3T? is solid enough, it become my default desktop and next I remove FC2. To use or not FC3T? for a "critical-mission" (like my desktop) is up to me. off-topic: my desktop is critical to me because I have only one PC at home and use it for Internet, mail, watching/recording TV/DVD, desktop stuff... > Can't have it both ways. > I was about to say that this has strayed far off topic, but adopting > good testing practices seems pretty on topic for fedora-test-list. > It is true that the best way to test it is to use it. I think that's > pretty much a given. And it's fine, and actually encouraged for testers > to use it on a desktop they use on a regular basis. > But rely on it to be secure or stable I _never_ said that. > and developers will probably point and laugh at > you. And justifiably so. Of course they'll want to hear about security > problems and other bugs. After all, that's the whole point. But if a > test release eats your critical data for which you have no backups, Beta/test or not, you _always_ need good backup. I have *2* backups (nightly build). I archive all rawhide changes if I need to revert to an old package. If some thing does wrong with the last rawhide, I can boot with my previous backup. If it doesn't work, I can use my previous previous backup. > or > messes up your desktop so bad that your late on a project at work, no > one is going to have any sympathy for you. Put it on a server serving > hundreds or thousands of users who are not willing testers and > developers will call you insane. > I apologize if I seem a bit antagonistic about this. It's just that I > see it as pretty important that people understand what testing means: I understand what testing is. I use beta/test release since RH8.0. I never complaint about it eat data. > that your data may get eaten alive and no one will be able to save you > from that. That's at least partially what's meant when Red Hat says not > to use it on critical systems. > And it's also important to understand what the Fedora Project is and > how it differs from RHEL. > RHEL *absolutely* *will* receive more attention from Red Hat than Fedora Core. What are we talking ? We are talking about beta/test. I feel Red Hat put the same level of attention to Fedora test than they put in RHEL beta. Perhaps a "different" attention. Please, a Red Hat employer can confirm this ? > RHEL is the money maker. Yes. And Fedora help improving RHEL (don't forget this). I think Red Hat do a very good decision with the "couple" Fedora/RHEL. But this decision does not imply that Red Hat should have two class of testers : - First class testers : RHEL (rpm signed, etc) - second class testers : Fedora, don't care about this "class" of testers. Let me try to summarise (in my bad English). It's up to me to decide to use a beta for a mission critical computer. Right now, for my personal computer, I feel the risk is pay back because this improve (I hope:-)) Fedora (and RHEL in a long run). And also because I like enjoying with the latest technology. By not signing their rpm in rawhide, Red Hat "force" me to take risk (fake rpm, ...) for _nothing_. I don't want to take these risks. > Fedora Core is the proving grounds. That's the bottom line. At least, > that's how I see it.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message =?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e?=