Updates Criteria Summary/Brainstorming
opensource at till.name
Mon Nov 22 18:19:05 UTC 2010
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 09:15:17AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-11-22 at 18:09 +0100, Emmanuel Seyman wrote:
> > The whole 'push directly to stable' arguement rests heavily on the principle
> > that an update is always better (from a QA standpoint) than whatever it's
> > replacing. The problem is that there's no way to guarantee this, essentielly
> > because it isn't true.
> I believe Kevin would say his position is that the update is better than
> what's there already *sufficiently often* that allowing unrestricted
> updates is a net benefit (the question is whether an occasional bad
> update is a worse problem than some updates being delayed for a week or
> longer in the case of untested critpath updates).
It is not some update that is delayed, but one that fixes a very bad bug
like e.g. a remote code execution vulnerability. And the worst update is
afaik that people had to use the command line to update instead of being
able to use packagekit or kpackagekit.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20101122/7ee54af9/attachment.bin
More information about the devel