Why was a kernel-2.6.34 pushed to updates that had un-addressed bugs.

[cornel panceac]

2010/9/2 Dennis J. <dennisml at conversis.de>

> On 09/02/2010 04:18 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Thu, 2010-09-02 at 12:12 +1000, Rodd Clarkson wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> It is however, perfectly reasonable to expect that having tried a
> >> kernel at the request of a fedora developer on fedora-test-list and
> >> then having filed a bug against said kernel reporting problems, that
> >> someone might actually have a few minutes required to actually ask a
> >> few more questions and try and address the problem.
> >>
> >> Otherwise, why did they ask for feedback if it was just to be ignored?
> >
> > To be frank, they don't have time to look at everything, and suspend is
> > a bit of a way down the list. They are aware of your bug - I know
> > because one of the kernel team asked me if I was aware of any problems
> > with 2.6.34 more serious than suspend issues, so obviously they've seen
> > yours, but haven't had time to respond to it yet.
>
> I think the question is how regressions are prioritized. For me the issue
> is that my Radeon card has been working perfectly on F11 but had a major
> performance regression with F12 that makes the system too slow for regular
> use. I filed a bug with lots of information and a sysprof profile that
> shows extreme differences in behavior between the F11 system and a current
> F14 build but this hasn't been dealt with since I posted that profile.
> The result is that I'm pretty much stuck on F11 for now which is
> frustrating not because I expect any particular fancy features to work but
> because I bought this card since it was so well supported and working
> nicely on F11. Also the mobile version of the same gfx-chip doesn't have
> this issue on my notebook so I have a hunch that this isn't some major
> problem but something that could potentially be solved relatively quickly.
>
> What am I supposed to do in this situation? I guess I could spend another
> hundred bucks on a new card but then I don't know if that will loose
> support in the next Fedora release either.
> I think regressions need to be prioritized.
>
> Regards,
>    Dennis
> -
>

imho , regressions should not be tolerated unless there' s a serious reason
to. too many times it happened that one thing worked now but no longer
worked in the next version, and this scenario keeps repeating. see k3b, qemu
and gthumb, for some examples. also there are outstanding bugs, linux kernel
related which are simply ignored. (like the inability to read from bios
which hard disk is first, or the recently fixed security hole.) of course
development means trying new things all the time, but why this is happening
on releases labeled as stable, is beyond my ability to understand.

-- 
Among the maxims on Lord Naoshige's wall, there was this one: "Matters of
great concern should be treated lightly." Master Ittei commented, "Matters
of small concern should be treated seriously."
(Ghost Dog : The Way of The Samurai)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/attachments/20100902/e5a1e545/attachment.html