Will Woods wrote:
You can make the argument that PackageKit is not ready all you want -
I've made the same argument myself. But it's irrelevant. pup and pirut
are basically unmaintained now. FESCo has considered the issue and
decided to go with PackageKit as the default.
Thanks for the info.
So the only way to make sure PackageKit *is* ready to be the default
package manager is to test it, file bugs, and get the maintainers to
*improve* it.
Shouldn't the "maintainers" be testing it themselves as well? The problems I saw
were so obvious they should never gotten out the door.
Perhaps this "release early and often" approach has gone too far. It looks to
much like "quick and dirty, throw it over the wall" to me. But hey, I'm an old
gray beard that would like to see the *quality* of s/w in Fedora improve. The
results so far have not demonstrated the incremental improvement over time that
would result from more fixing bugs and less feature churn. See the number of
bugs in bugzilla.
Complaining on -test-list but *refusing* to report bugs improves
*nothing*. It's the lazy way out and it's a waste of your time and mine.
Either test and report bugs, or quietly stick with pup and pirut.
I saw complaining about and refusing to report bugs as a reminder to
"maintainers" that not responding to bugs promptly will reduce the number of bug
reporters and thus reduce the feedback they need, especially if they do not test
their own work themselves as is apparent with PackageKit.
The bug triage process is moving forward but it will be wasted if "maintainers"
do not improve their response to bugs.
HTH
Richard
--
fedora-test-list mailing list
fedora-test-list@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe:
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list
