Why was a kernel-2.6.34 pushed to updates that had un-addressed bugs.

[Rodd Clarkson]

On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 12:18 PM, Adam Williamson <awilliam at redhat.com>wrote:

> On Thu, 2010-09-02 at 12:12 +1000, Rodd Clarkson wrote:
>
> To be frank, they don't have time to look at everything, and suspend is
> a bit of a way down the list. They are aware of your bug - I know
> because one of the kernel team asked me if I was aware of any problems
> with 2.6.34 more serious than suspend issues, so obviously they've seen
> yours, but haven't had time to respond to it yet.
>
> To be frank, I don't have time to test things at the request of developers
if my test results are just going to be ignored.

It's a lot of work to test stuff (as you would know) and no-one likes to be
ignored.  Even a simple not in the bug report saying that there was a
compelling reason for upgrading the kernel to 2.6.34 that meant that the
issue wouldn't be resolved and that I should make sure that I avoid updates
if I require suspend/resume to work can't be too much pressure on a
developer time - this of course assumes that there was a compelling reason
and that it wasn't upgrades for the sake of upgrades in a stable product.)

Might I ask what great good has come from this?


Rodd
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/attachments/20100902/4e0939c3/attachment.html