On 12/01/2010 04:35 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Wed, 2010-12-01 at 16:22 -0500, Doug Ledford wrote:
> If the ticket can be allowed to languish that long, then I don't feel in
> the least bit guilty that I didn't drop my other Red Hat
> responsibilities on the floor when the ticket was finally approved. By
> the time it was approved, I had already moved on.
I didn't say you should. I said your assertion that F14 went out with an
older mdadm '*purely* because of this policy' was not supported by
It *was* purely because of this policy. 60 days after I file a bodhi
ticket, I'm done working on whatever I was working on at the time. Even
if I had seen the approval notification, I wouldn't have pushed it with
only 4 days until freeze. Not when I've completely forgotten what was
in the package.
The package could have been included in F14 had it been pushed
soon after critpath testing approval was granted. Therefore, it's simply
not correct that the policy alone prevented it being included. (If you'd
submitted the update to stable close to the final date it wouldn't have
taken five days to be pushed; rel-eng do pushes far more often when it's
close to a deadline).
> Fortunately, I wasn't
> under the same restrictions on Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6, so it went GA
> with a much better, fixed mdadm relative to Fedora.
The implied comparison here is unfair and hence not helpful; RHEL has a
large group of paid test staff. Fedora does not.
The comparison is 100% fair because it points out the fundamental
problem with the current policy: if you don't have a paid staff of
testers to make sure testing is done in a timely fashion, then you have
absolutely no business gating updates on a testing staff that doesn't
exist. It's nice in theory to think we can force testing of updates
prior to their release, but if the testing staff simply isn't there,
then you aren't improving the product, you're just stopping progress.
Doug Ledford <dledford(a)redhat.com>
GPG KeyID: CFBFF194
Infiniband specific RPMs available at