Development to release quality (was: Re: openssh: no pre-release sanity check?)
fedora at alexhudson.com
Mon Sep 12 09:26:15 UTC 2011
(I'm really glad this topic has come up - I think it's critically
On Mon, 2011-09-12 at 00:19 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Clyde E. Kunkel wrote:
> > Maybe there needs to be a classification for rawhide similar to the
> > karma system for updates-testing, but limited to just a set of packages
> > that should just always work (maybe openssh would be one).
> We cannot do any useful development [[with that system]]
I mostly agree with this, if karma is used in general as a gating
mechanism as with release. However, if we think about the general
principle of karma - getting some transparency about which packages /
packagers are releasing broken - I think that's a useful thing to track.
I don't see that as being a way of assigning blame or anything like
that, but highlighting the areas which are particularly problematic.
> We just need people to grasp that Rawhide is NOT suitable for any sort of
> production use and that it WILL break. (Not "may", "will"!) As they say:
> "Rawhide eats babies!"
This, I totally disagree with. Without any expectation that Rawhide
should work, there is even less incentive for anyone to use it to test
I view this as entirely equivalent to having a rule about not breaking
trunk in version control: I don't know anyone who seriously argues that
breaking a project compile is a good thing. Breaking the OS should be
culturally identical - that it's a "development branch" or whatever is
The crucial reasoning here is that rawhide is a shared resource. Sure,
people using rawhide ought to know roughly how to fix stuff when it
breaks - but that imposes a maintenance burden on everyone who gets a
Having a generally-usable rawhide would do much to improve quality in
Fedora, because more subtle errors - or bugs limited to certain
sub-populations - will get picked up much earlier. If rawhide is not
suitable for "production use", that means it will get virtually no
real-life use, and while rwmj's points about VM testing are well-taken,
it's not a real shake-down. Actual use by technically competent real
users is crucial for quality, and having to wait until alpha/beta for
large numbers of those users to try the software really is too late in
This message was scanned by Better Hosted and is believed to be clean.
More information about the devel