[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Maintainers Responsibility (was alpha/beta software in Fedora 8)

Bastien Nocera wrote:
On Thu, 2007-11-29 at 09:43 +0100, Nils Philippsen wrote:
On Wed, 2007-11-28 at 11:31 -0500, Matthias Clasen wrote:

The importance of individual packages is pretty dependent on the use
case. For most users of a Fedora desktop, it is probably far more
disastrous if the email client or web browser crashes, than if some dns
server the haven't installed has some bugs.
This assumes that Fedora is "just" a desktop, while it is much more --
the desktop is "just" a part of it. A significant one, surely, but a
part. From my POV, Adam was okay to put in that version of bind because
he tested it and found no problems, and most definitely not because the
bind package is somehow less important than say the gnome-panel.

Read Matthias' reply again. He made no such assumption, you did: "For
most users of a Fedora desktop [...]"

It really depends... If DNS crashes and Fedora is the DNS server for your subnet your end users might not be able to get to any network sites whereas if your email client crashes, well at least you have a browser for web mail.

On the flip side, If DNS has a few bugs that only hit in obscure cases, how is that any more or less disastrous than if evolution only has a few bugs that only hit in obscure cases?

So my real issue is with the naivete of the post Matthias was replying to -- trying to judge importance of a bug based on whether the app is for the "desktop" vs "server" is a false dichotomy. You have to judge based on what happens when the bug occurs, how it is provoked, how many users (rather than computers) are affected when the bug occurs, etc. "desktop" and "server" might help you determine these answers but it isn't an answer in and of itself.


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]