F11 Proposal: Stabilization

[shmuel siegel]

Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-11-18 at 20:24 -0600, Les Mikesell wrote:
>   
>> No, but it would be nice to have a way to avoid most of the 'new 
>> brokenness' at times when it might be inconvenient even while others are 
>> taking advantage (and their chances) with new features.   The kernel 
>> update late in FC6's life that crashed with many scsi controllers (and 
>> was quickly fixed) would be a good example of the type of thing that 
>> could have been avoided on some machines with some mechanism to delay 
>> updates for a bit on the machines where you care.
>>     
>
> So again, why wouldn't people using updates-testing have caught this?
> Oh probably because the people who had systems that would have triggered
> this bug wouldn't want to use the risky repo.  Which means they would
> all fall back to the updates-tested repo you talk about and history
> would repeat itself, but maybe then you'd ask for a
> updates-tested-no-really-I-mean-it
>
>   
I am not sure that you are right. The audience for updates tested might 
very well be bigger than the one for updates testing. For example, I 
always started using rawhide at test2, never at test1. Test1 was viewed 
as pre-alpha and just too raw for someone who wanted a system that 
basically worked but had some bugs.