Re: Should a working fedup in Fedora N's stable repository be a release criterion for N+1?

[Andrew Lutomirski]

On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 4:52 PM, Emmanuel Seyman <emmanuel(a)seyman.fr&gt; wrote:
>  * Andrew Lutomirski [17/12/2013 15:22] :
> >
> > I propose changing that to something like "Install fedup.  The version
> > of fedup used must be the most recent stable release.)
>
>  Given that you yourself report that the most recent stable release of fedup
>  does not work, I'm not sure why you would want this change. 
If that were a release blocker, then perhaps it would have been fixed
on time.  (Given that the QA process *already* suggests testing
updates-testing's fedup, accumulating enough karma points should be
easy, at least.)

I don't think Fedora is doing its users any favors by declaring F20 to
be released when upgrading from F19 using 'fedup --source network 20'
is known to be broken.  The bleeding-edge types can already upgrade to
the beta.

--Andy

Should a working fedup in Fedora N's stable repository be a release criterion for N+1?

[Michael Catanzaro]

On Tue, 2013-12-17 at 18:33 -0800, Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
>  I don't think Fedora is doing its users any favors by declaring
> F20 to
>  be released when upgrading from F19 using 'fedup --source network 20'
>  is known to be broken.  The bleeding-edge types can already upgrade to
>  the beta. 
I'm attempting to imagine Microsoft or Apple telling users to install an
experimental, insufficiently-tested utility to perform a risky operating
system upgrade -- or even a stable, sufficiently-tested utility that is
nonetheless labeled as experimental.