On 03/07/2008 02:27 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
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
>> the
>>> 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
>> of
>> 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 2.6.24.2-7.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.
People should file bugs instead of just posting a comment in Bodhi.
Bodhi does not provide the same features as bugzilla for tracking
problems -- for example this weekend we had one person in Bodhi
posting the same -1 karma message three times in a row...