FESCo wants to ban direct stable pushes in Bodhi (urgent call for feedback)

[Kevin Kofler]

(Sorry, I reordered the replies a bit so I can reply to them without 
referring back and forth.)

Frank Murphy wrote:
> On 02/27/2010 04:30 PM, Mail Lists wrote:
> an
>>
>>   I do want updates. Kernel updates, for example, are very important -
>> they carry many improvements - not just drivers but functionality as
>> well. The ones that are less obvious are the bugs that happen rarely but
>> that can be nasty (an occasional file system glitch for example).
>>
> 
> As as enduser.
> I would agree with this.

So you claim to agree with the parent poster…

>>   These kind of non-user-demand driven fixes should not be ignored in any
>> noone-is-asking so dont release approach.
> 
> If it's not broken, don't fix it.

… yet you actually don't, and…

>>   The rare-but-nasty bug fixes will seldom have user demand - but
>> nonetheless once identified and fixed should be shared.
> 
> Bug fixes would also be applied.

… so which is it now? Do you now think bugfixes which don't fix a bug in our 
Bugzilla should be pushed or not? FWIW, I think they should indeed be 
pushed, as the fact that the bug is not in our Bugzilla does not mean it 
doesn't affect Fedora users (and so the package IS in fact broken and should 
be fixed)!


And in addition:

> On the everyday boxes there is FedoraN + F13\Rawhide Kernel(s).

… so the stable Fedora kernels aren't upgraded often enough for you, but …

> If it's not broken, don't fix it.
> 
> Thats what the F13/Rawhide boxes are for.

… you seem to advocate an even more conservative upgrade policy?


I must say I don't understand your position at all.

        Kevin Kofler