Refining the update queues/process [Was: Worthless updates]
mschwendt at gmail.com
Fri Mar 5 17:26:20 UTC 2010
On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 09:11:10 -0800, Adam wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 18:01 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > It doesn't change anything, though. No feedback => nothing to rely on.
> > These recent discussions on this list could have been fruitful, btw.
> > For some people it has become a game of "I'm right - you aren't",
> > unfortunately.
> Nothing like that. It just frustrates me when people don't debate
Then consider stopping to send further replies. You -- and some other
participants in these threads -- pipe out way too many replies in
> (Yes, there is a correct way to debate - take a philosophy class).
That's an impertinent comment, nothing else.
> Replying to my post in which I said something, cutting out the
> bit where I said it, and then saying the same thing as if it contradicts
> what my post said - what does that achieve, exactly?
It gives enough context.
> Again, I already
> acknowledged that the current process does not notice all problems in
> candidate updates.
No, not in a clear way. Instead, you keep emphasising that no negative
feedback is not equal to a package not having been tested at all. That's
just plain useless. Not even all broken deps are reported in bodhi.
> All I've said is that it _does_ notice some problems,
> and the fact that an update has 0 feedback is not an indication that
> no-one has tried it and checked it doesn't make their system blow up.
Refer to my previous reply for the comment on this where you insist on
repeating the same thing over and over again.
No further comment.
More information about the devel