2008/12/10 Jesse Keating <jkeating@xxxxxxxxxx>: > On Tue, 2008-12-09 at 18:22 -0600, Les Mikesell wrote: >> One way or another, if I were building a distribution that wanted to >> simultaneously claim that it is both new code and 'tested and working', >> I'd try to plan in a way that it wasn't a flip of the coin on every >> machine which you'll get today. > > Now here's a crazy idea, that nobody seems to want to follow: > > Treat rawhide as your 'new code' land, leave the release trees as your > 'testing and working' code. That is don't be so goddamn eager to push > new packages and new upstream releases to every freaking branch in > existence. > > Of course, when I make suggestions like these, I become extremely > unpopular. Not to me. +1 Regarding +/-, Can new packages default accordingly? +1 rawhide 0 testing -1 stable (or, +2, 0, -2... you get the idea) Then, the voting system does what it's supposed to do!!! Maybe analogous to pkg submitter, sponsor, review, etc - other sets of eyes, taking ownership of action.... In other words, push back some of the "goddamn" ownership where it belows, instead of the front-end where testers and **end-users** have to do cart-wheels to fix things. And, don't start crying, "aww, we just don't have time..." boo-f*(&ing-hoo. Neither do the rest of us. But, working together, the system should balance itself - when the votes happen it's a good package, when they don't it means, go figure, more testing needs to be done, and help should be requested accordingly. See the efficiency there? The few request help *forward*, rather than the masses, in a panic, requesting help *backwards*... jerry p.s. I only started those sentences with conjunctions for the sake of time. Please don't try this at home! :-) -- Store in cool, dry place. Rotate stock. -- fedora-test-list mailing list fedora-test-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list
