Res: Open Letter: Why I, Kevin Kofler, am not rerunning for FESCo
jkeating at redhat.com
Tue May 4 17:48:19 UTC 2010
On Tue, 2010-05-04 at 12:04 -0500, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> Jesse Keating wrote:
> > 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.
> No, I was stating fact - not opinion. Older releases receive less
> testing. Bodhi metrics show it if you want something tangible besides my
Current bodhi metrics cannot be used as a judge. Currently karma is not
required, so the path of least resistance is to not provide it. If/when
karma is required for an update to go out, or a timeout in -testing, we
will see an uptick in karma. We've seen that in branched, we will
likely see it in released Fedora's too. How much, and in which release
remains to be seen.
> > 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
> > easier.
> We can't rely on one tester to be able to test older releases through a
> stringent policy, can we?
> It's common sense that older releases should be receiving more testing,
> but here in reality it is the opposite. If I am wrong, please prove it.
The point of the updates policy is to change reality, not to draft
policy around an existing reality. The reality is that updates are
going out untested to stable releases and causing real problems to real
users. We'd like to change that reality.
Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature!
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20100504/b6f9f681/attachment.bin
More information about the devel