F11 Proposal: Stabilization

[Les Mikesell]

Jeff Spaleta wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 3:11 PM, Les Mikesell <lesmikesell at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Every time anyone mentions slowing down the feature changes in favor of
>> fixing the brokenness there are a flurry of postings from people saying they
>> want all the new features they can get.
> 
> 
> Are you talking about known brokenness that exists and has been
> reported already.. or new brokenness that we don't know about yet that
> is introduced in updates that our current ability to test failed to
> catch?

There will always be some of both and some large number of real-world 
users are what it takes to sort them out.

> Holding back isn't going to magically help us prevent new
> brokenness of any variety.

No, but it would be nice to have a way to avoid most of the 'new 
brokenness' at times when it might be inconvenient even while others are 
taking advantage (and their chances) with new features.   The kernel 
update late in FC6's life that crashed with many scsi controllers (and 
was quickly fixed) would be a good example of the type of thing that 
could have been avoided on some machines with some mechanism to delay 
updates for a bit on the machines where you care.

-- 
   Les Mikesell
    lesmikesell at gmail.com