[systemd-devel] question

Adam Williamson awilliam at redhat.com
Wed Sep 14 05:42:38 UTC 2011

On Wed, 2011-09-14 at 00:25 -0400, Genes MailLists wrote:
> On 09/13/2011 09:48 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> > On 09/14/2011 06:47 AM, Genes MailLists wrote:
> >> Good points - up to a point - but lets go slow and think for a few
> >> minutes - unlike the kernel which is very hardware dependent and
> >> therefore may run on many machines but not all, systemd is no - or
> >> should not be for its core functionality. Its a piece of software that
> >> should run exactly the same way for all hardware - this is certainly
> >> true for its core functionality - it does indeed take on additional
> >> roles and I have not looked at the source code to see how well /
> >> robustly it handles exceptions ... The chances of it failing for a
> >> subset of users after being decently tested is way lower than for
> >> kernel code 
> > 
> > You may very well be right but there is a very high risk involved if it
> > fails for say 5% of the users.   I don't see anything in the newer
> > version that justifies taking that risk overriding the upstream
> > developers judgement. 

>  Honestly, if systemd updates has 5% of users failing on an update to
> the software - we should dump the thing immediately and go back to
> upstart. That is insanely high bug rate for core code which is (or
> should be) pretty simple.

Rahul was presenting a theoretical example, not an *expectation* that a
systemd update would break things for 5% of users.
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora

More information about the devel mailing list