Refining the update queues/process [Was: Worthless updates]

[Till Maas]

On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 11:05:23PM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 08:02 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > Why? Because you say so? We aren't doing that stuff now and things are 
> > working just fine, thank you very much! We don't HAVE to change anything at 
> > all!
> > 
> 
> This I believe to be the crux of the problem.  When multiple updates go
> out that break large or important segments of our user base, many of us
> see a problem.  You however seem to think it's "just fine".  Many of us
> would rather put out a better operating system, and to do that, we need
> change.  Your "just fine" isn't good enough.

Are there even any  metrics about how many bad updates happened? For me
bug that can be fixed issuing an update are a lot more than regressions
with updates or new bugs introduced with updates. If updates are slowed
down, this will get even worse. Especially because the proposal is to
use time instead of test coverage as the criterion to push an update to
stable.

Regards
Till
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20100303/9140d3b7/attachment.bin