<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 1:12 PM, Chuck Ebbert <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:cebbert@redhat.com">cebbert@redhat.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="im">On Sat, 04 Sep 2010 23:10:11 -0400<br>
Bill Davidsen <<a href="mailto:davidsen@tmr.com">davidsen@tmr.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
> If they don't have time to look at everything, then maybe they should stop<br>
> shipping kernels they haven't looked at! Really, people who needed 2.6.34 could<br>
> pull it from updates-untested and the rest of us could have working systems.<br>
><br>
<br>
</div>I'm not sure what you're suggesting here. Should we be reviewing the<br>
~10,000 patches that go into a new kernel? Testing it on thousands of<br>
different combinations of hardware? 2.6.34 went through several rounds<br>
in updates-testing before being released. And let's face it, suspend<br>
has always been a problem and probably always will, given the number<br>
of different BIOS and firmware bugs it needs to work around.<br>
<br></blockquote><div><br>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.<br><br>
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.<br>
<br><br>Rodd<br><br></div></div>