On Fri, 7 Mar 2008 18:28:17 +0100
"David Nielsen" <gnomeuser(a)gmail.com> wrote:
2008/3/7, Jarod Wilson <jwilson(a)redhat.com>:
> On Friday 07 March 2008 10:51:25 am Benjamin Kreuter wrote:
> > On Thursday 06 March 2008 19:29:23 Chuck Ebbert wrote:
> > > Sorry, we had to release with known bugs. A new kernel will be in
> > > updates-testing very shortly.
> > Why did you have to release with known bugs? Why not just wait until
> > bugs are fixed? The last three kernel updates broke suspend for me...
> Uh... If we waited until all the known bugs were fixed, we'd never release
> *any* kernel... :)
> Despite this kernel making my own iwl4965 unusable, I was fully in favor
> releasing it. In theory, we fixed more problems than we caused, and you're
> always welcome to keep running the prior kernel. (I'm actually running a
> slightly modified 184.108.40.206-7.fc8 now).
I don't think anyone expects perfection, but when breakage goes so far as to
encourage users to petition against an update being marked stable we might
want to reconsider deploying. Not doing so reflects poorly on Fedora as a
project to users in that our update policy looks dangerous to them and
discourages testers from reporting problems since their experience will be
that they are being ignored.
We have an official way to protest an update. You go in the update
system and give it bad karma. If a package gets -3, it gets
auto-unpushed. At the moment the kernel is not exempt from this.
This particular update had a karma level of -1 when it was pushed. If
only two more of you on this thread had bothered to use the mechanisms
we have in place it would have been unpushed. So while I understand
your frustration, it seems to be a bit out of place to deride the
kernel developers for releasing something that people couldn't be
bothered to mark as bad.