FESCo wants to ban direct stable pushes in Bodhi (urgent call for feedback)

[Kevin Kofler]

James Antill wrote:
>  The one "minor incident" being where the project leader had to post to
> the world that we'd screwed it up,

Well, I think he overblew it too. ;-) But he just wanted to get the message 
out so people can fix it more easily. Still, I don't see how it's a major 
issue. The vast majority of Fedora users didn't even notice this at all as 
they don't run a bind server.

> and got covered in LWN etc.

The press always overblows stuff, that's not news.

> I don't think I'd like to wait for something you'd class as a non-minor
> incident.

That D-Bus security update applications were not prepared for was a much 
bigger fiasco, many more users were hit.

>  I probably spend at least an hour a week updating, and current have
> over 220 packages available to update (a significant part of which are
> shared libraries linked against most of the distro.). Download size for
> everything is just over 330MB. History summary since GA shows over 1,100
> Erases, Installs, Obsoletes and Updates.

And where's the problem? That's 330 MB worth of improvements, bug fixes etc. 
It shows that we're all busy making Fedora better.

>  Probably when I next reboot, I'll just do a giant "yum update -y" and
> hope for the best ... which is what I assume most of our users do.

Well, nobody forces you to read update details.

>  If you think there's nothing wrong with that, and even more so if you
> think updates-testing should be bypassed in a significant number of
> cases, well then rawhide is that => way.

No, Rawhide is completely different, it also contains disruptive updates (by 
design, not just in extremely rare cases and by mistake) and there is no 
testing repository at all for it (so if something breaks, it always hits 
you, not just in the rare event the update bypassed testing despite being 
risky or the breakage slipped through testing).

You and everyone else, please stop proposing Rawhide as the solution for me 
and people who want the same "update everything that doesn't break things" 
policy, it does NOT fit our usecase at all!

On the other hand, your usecase has a solution, it's called CentOS.

        Kevin Kofler