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

Re: Fedora QA ? - Re: What Fedora makes sucking for me - or why I am NOT Fedora



Michael Schwendt wrote:
> Fedora has a serious problem with updates that are pushed out to "stable"
> directly. Originally we've had a guideline to use updates-testing for
> a few days.

I think we need to differentiate, not all updates pushed straight to stable
are bad. Some updates really bear essentially no risk, for example an
update which just restores a bugfix patch which accidentally got forgotten
while rebasing to a new version, e.g.:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F10/FEDORA-2008-11045
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F9/FEDORA-2008-11054
(and yes, the rebase to the new version *did* go through testing, the
regression was not noticed there unfortunately). It also makes sense to
push critical security updates directly to stable, like a trivial fix for a
remote root. The problem is when the security update is not critical (at
least not to the point where it would have been fixed in less than a
month!) and the fix is very much non-obvious and risky, but it still gets
the expedited treatment.

> I'm also surprised to find discrepancies between Rawhide (just 1-2 weeks
> before F10 release) and F10 final.

The first weeks of Rawhide after a release are always a horribly broken
mess, why are you surprised? It's called "pre-alpha software".

        Kevin Kofler


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