Updates Vision clarification / status

Kevin Fenzi kevin at tummy.com
Fri Jul 23 19:52:24 UTC 2010

On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 12:28:18 -0500 (CDT)
Mike McGrath <mmcgrath at redhat.com> wrote:

> <not a board member but commenting anyway>

Excellent. ;) 

> To me the quote above is a goal, not a rule.  There will be
> exceptions, but they should be exceptions and not the norm.

ok. It's hard to tell if it's an absolute or a goal. 
Clarification on that from the Board would be good. 

> If no one has a particular bug open and the bug fixed isn't
> substantial, I'd sit on the update or send it to testing at most.

There are bugs. All the time. :) They want it to work with device X
thats supported in the new release. The XKCD feed handling is broken
and they want a fix, etc. 

So, I should only push an update here when there is a specific bug that
someone has filed that I know is fixed in newer version X?

...snip kde... 

> The act of releasing N+1 doesn't mean that N is busted.  I think it'd
> take an educated eye to determine if the update is worth it.  But
> again, the update should be the exception and not the rule.  Do what
> is practical to reach the goal in the quote.

Right. There could be an exception for this, but if we do an exception
every release for this, doesn't it stop being an exception? ;) 

> Side note: Dear KDE.  You have an inconvenient release process.

yes. ;(

> > I'd like to propose modifying the statement somehow.
> > Perhaps something like:
> >
> > Stable releases should strive to provide a consistent user
> > experience throughout the lifecycle, focusing on bug and security
> > fixes.
> I don't think this conveys the negative connotation that was intended
> with regards to feature only and major updates.


> I think a set of tests is an excellent idea "make sure you say no to
> all of these before doing your update" but exceptions are always
> going to happen.  I'd hate for fesco to be a sort of gate there for
> all of Fedora (crit path I assume already has some process).  It's
> unfortunate that there's no facility to make decisions on the devel
> list.

Yeah, currently it's "up to maintainer", and we see a flood of updates. 
I guess we could see how many exceptions come up, but I'd prefer not to
be talking about 50 exceptions a week. 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/advisory-board/attachments/20100723/4f4b2e38/attachment.bin 

More information about the advisory-board mailing list