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

Re: Stability classes (was: Testing test releases: do [ESC d]notupdate)



On Sat, 2004-02-28 at 01:56 +0100, Axel Thimm wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 27, 2004 at 10:15:34AM -0500, Sandy Pond wrote:
> > 
> > Doing as you suggest would severely cripple the testing/bug reporting/
> > fixing process by adding more internal loops.
> 
> You mean tagging packages as stable or less stable? I haven't
> experienced slowing down or waste of developer time with stability
> classification, on the contrary. Users can tune their system to their
> liking and I can push out packages faster. Much like the new testing
> updates FC1 introduced.

I do very much appreciate your contributions as well as the other third
party repos.  But Redhat already has three levels in FC1. The FC2 test1
snapshot is somewhat stable, as probably the FC2 test2 snapshot will be.
Now some people want to add more development loops to the development
channel.  I say let's leave it alone and reserve the development channel
as a streamline for quickly pushing new packages, finding bugs and
getting them fixed as quick as possible.  Frankly, I'm finding rawhide
much stabler than in the past when I've played with it.

I think if you need a stable machine use FC1 (Jeez ... I got one machine
that still has RH8 on it that I got to get to) ... if you need a
testing/development machine then use FC2.  




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