Res: Open Letter: Why I, Kevin Kofler, am not rerunning for FESCo

Jesse Keating jkeating at
Tue May 4 16:45:57 UTC 2010

On Tue, 2010-05-04 at 11:25 -0500, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> Fedora Rawhide/Fedora N+1
> Yes, these need rigorous testing and QA. Policies and tests are being 
> set in place that will make a better and brighter Fedora future. 
> However, it seems that the same release-level criteria are eroding down 
> to stable updates.
> Fedora N
> Testing is nice, but mandatory on all updates? Before you point at me 
> claiming I wish to destroy Fedora with bad updates, lets re-hash 
> everything that has been hashed out the past few months. If someone puts 
> out a "bad" update, they should be allowed to correct their mistake as 
> soon as possible - karma or not. Time, nor testing, can catch 
> everything. This must be accepted.
> Fedora N-1
> It seems there is an unwritten rule that this release level only 
> receives bug-fixes only, especially right before EOL. Testing of these 
> packages is extremely minimal because most QA folk have moved on to N or 
> even N+1. Are bug fixes going to be missing after EOL due to inadequate 
> testing to meet the stringent requirements you wish to set?
> Fedora's contributors, myself included, are not at a level where we can 
> provide simultaneous testing of all Fedora releases (including rawhide) 
> for all packages. Requiring all Fedora releases to sit under one QA 
> doctrine is asinine. You want suggestions? There need to be multi-level 
> policies. No two Fedora versions are the same, so why should updates all 
> be subject to the same policies?

So this is kind of funny.  You'd rather see testing become /less/
rigorous as the age of a release grows, and you want the most rigorous
testing done in rawhide.  That's quite the opposite of what many of us
are trying to work toward, that is as the release moves from rawhide
into branched into released into released-1 the testing gets harder, and
the chance of breakage gets lower.  Users of older releases aren't there
for the fun of it, they need to get real work done, and don't want
updates to get in their way of accomplishing that.  We should be more
careful with our older release than anything else.

So I'd love to have multi-level policy, but in my opinion it should get
harder and harder to push an update as the release gets older, not

Jesse Keating
Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature!
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : 

More information about the devel mailing list