Bodhi updates

[Kevin Kofler]

Jesse Keating wrote:
> Nor is testing / stability atomic / equal across the branches.  While
> the f13 package may work fine, the f12 build may have severe problems.

Which is something which happens maybe 1 in 1000 times, and would happen 
even less often (maybe 1 in 10000 times) if some strategic packages (such as 
SQLite) proactively tracked upstream point releases in updates (which is 
another thing I've been arguing for all this time).

IMHO this risk is negligible compared to the risk of issues missing testing, 
which cannot be eliminated, no matter how much of a PITA you make testing 
requirements. So it makes no sense to care about the negligible risk. (It's 
also quite funny how the people who argue about how that risk is real are 
the same ones happily using a hash-based SCM which has a non-zero risk of 
corrupting your repositories or data due to a hash collision…) Testing will 
NEVER be infallible, whether the risk of failure is, say, 1% or 1.01% 
doesn't make any practical difference.

If you want to show that the risk is not negligible, I challenge you to come 
up with actual statistical data proving that 1% or more of our updates are 
affected by branch-specific issues. I believe we're quite far from that, and 
the rough data I see daily as both a maintainer and user of Fedora confirms 
this: I don't see anywhere near such a high failure rate. Whereas the actual 
failure rate of testing, even with the new PITA procedures, is probably much 
higher than 1%: I see issues missing testing all the time.

> They need to be treated individually.

You've been there when Fedora Legacy failed. (In fact, it was YOUR project.) 
This (the excess testing requirements, in particular the requirement to test 
every single release separately, even if the changes are identical, as a 1-
minute proofreading can prove) was why it failed. Why are we now repeating 
this mistake?

        Kevin Kofler