Development to release quality

[Alex Hudson]

On Mon, 2011-09-12 at 12:01 +0200, Matej Cepl wrote:
> Dne 12.9.2011 11:26, Alex Hudson napsal(a):
> > 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
> > totally irrelevant.
> 
> Too much QA (or any external QA) imposed on the development make it 
> slower.

I find it interesting that you can jump from "don't break the OS" to
"too much QA". 

But that's beside the point. I'm not arguing that packages should be
unavailable until some external QA OK's it (quite the opposite). I'm not
even arguing for an individual packager QA process.

Cultivating a culture of "don't break Rawhide" seems entirely sensible
in that regard. Sure, *maybe* it might mean people do more testing and
their individual development slows down a bit. But *maybe* having
rawhide generally working would mean maintainers don't get blocked by
other people's bad updates and overall get things done faster. 

Same for the pre-release branch. Breaking F16 should be serious
business. Right now, it really isn't.

"Eats babies" is just an excuse imho. Of course things will break now
and then for some substantial group of users: but that should be a rare
exception. 

Cheers

Alex.


--
This message was scanned by Better Hosted and is believed to be clean.
http://www.betterhosted.com