acceptability of updates-testing breakage vs. rawhide breakage

[Chuck Anderson]

On Thu, Jan 09, 2014 at 10:42:33AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-01-09 at 10:13 -0500, Chuck Anderson wrote:
> > This appears to have also broken Fedora 19 updates-testing, which is
> > even less acceptable than breaking rawhide.
> 
> Eh, I'd suggest not. updates-testing is actually explicitly meant as a
> place to catch this kind of problem, whereas we're trying to keep
> Rawhide rolling and especially try not to break nightly image
> generation. At least we can vote broken things in updates-testing down.

Wow, really?  updates-testing is allowed to be more broken than
rawhide?  So why don't we just do all development in updates-testing,
and don't push these changes to rawhide until they pass the
updates-testing karma?  

This is not how I understand these things should work.  I think this
attitude will push even fewer people to run with updates-testing
enabled.