rawhide and Fedora QA [was Re: why I'm using Ubuntu instead of Fedora ATM]

[Axel Thimm]

On Mon, Jun 11, 2007 at 11:26:33AM -0400, Dave Jones wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 11, 2007 at 08:20:07AM -0700, Karsten Wade wrote:
>  > On Sun, 2007-06-10 at 12:01 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>  > >  because we IMHO heavily discourage people to run
>  > > rawhide. 
>  > 
>  > I wonder if this is some kind of leftover Red Hat prejudice?
>  > 
>  > Ironically, rawhide is more unstable because not enough people are
>  > running it.
>  > 
>  > Personally, I do all my business work using Fedora.  I can risk a few
>  > hours here and there, but I won't run rawhide if I can't be sure it is
>  > more stable than currently advertised.
> 
> Something to note is that people have different perception of 'stable' too.
> With the kernel changing on an almost daily basis, you can pretty much
> forget having kmod's working most of the time due to API churn and
> associated breakage.   Likewise, various other add-ons that people like
> to grab from livna, freshrpms etc will be busted six ways to sunday.
> 
> People expecting this sort of thing to keep working in rawhide will be
> in for a surprise.

It was tough, but ATrpms managed to stay on par with rawhide for most
of the time between test2 and GA. But I run a mirror and have most of
the kernel module stuff rebuild automated, the fun was when the
rebuilds would not build anymore.

Still it was managable.
-- 
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/advisory-board/attachments/20070611/9556f7d9/attachment.bin