On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 1:12 PM, Chuck Ebbert <cebbert@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
See I have a different view on this. I've no problem with a new kernel being introduced into rawhide for upcoming versions of fedora. That's progress and without Fedora stagnates.
But I guess when you put it your way, there's no way in hell that anything with ~10,000 unreviewed patches should even be introduced into a stable version of Fedora. Especially when testing of it shows that it causes regressions in a stable product.
Rodd
On Sat, 04 Sep 2010 23:10:11 -0400I'm not sure what you're suggesting here. Should we be reviewing the
Bill Davidsen <davidsen@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> If they don't have time to look at everything, then maybe they should stop
> shipping kernels they haven't looked at! Really, people who needed 2.6.34 could
> pull it from updates-untested and the rest of us could have working systems.
>
~10,000 patches that go into a new kernel? Testing it on thousands of
different combinations of hardware? 2.6.34 went through several rounds
in updates-testing before being released. And let's face it, suspend
has always been a problem and probably always will, given the number
of different BIOS and firmware bugs it needs to work around.
See I have a different view on this. I've no problem with a new kernel being introduced into rawhide for upcoming versions of fedora. That's progress and without Fedora stagnates.
But I guess when you put it your way, there's no way in hell that anything with ~10,000 unreviewed patches should even be introduced into a stable version of Fedora. Especially when testing of it shows that it causes regressions in a stable product.
Rodd
-- test mailing list test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
