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

Rodd Clarkson rodd at clarkson.id.au
Tue Sep 7 11:20:27 UTC 2010


On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 1:12 PM, Chuck Ebbert <cebbert at redhat.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 04 Sep 2010 23:10:11 -0400
> Bill Davidsen <davidsen at tmr.com> wrote:
>
> > If they don't have time to look at everything, then maybe they should
> stop
> > shipping kernels they haven't looked at! Really, people who needed 2.6.34
> could
> > pull it from updates-untested and the rest of us could have working
> systems.
> >
>
> I'm not sure what you're suggesting here. Should we be reviewing the
> ~10,000 patches that go into a new kernel? Testing it on thousands of
> different combinations of hardware? 2.6.34 went through several rounds
> in updates-testing before being released. And let's face it, suspend
> has always been a problem and probably always will, given the number
> of different BIOS and firmware bugs it needs to work around.
>
>
See I have a different view on this.  I've no problem with a new kernel
being introduced into rawhide for upcoming versions of fedora.  That's
progress and without Fedora stagnates.

But I guess when you put it your way, there's no way in hell that anything
with ~10,000 unreviewed patches should even be introduced into a stable
version of Fedora.  Especially when testing of it shows that it causes
regressions in a stable product.


Rodd
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/attachments/20100907/caaacce1/attachment.html 


More information about the test mailing list