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

[Seth Vidal]

On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Till Maas wrote:

> 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.

Actually the proposal is time AND test coverage.

-sv