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

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

Jeff Spaleta wrote:
On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 8:43 AM, Colin Walters <walters verbum org> wrote:
I think the simplest would have requiring pushes direct to stable for
core packages (defining "core" as "anything installed by default on
the Desktop or Service livecd images") need some sort of signoff,
possibly from multiple people.

Did you really have to use the word "core"?  I think everything on the
Desktop live image is probably way too broad.  Does all Desktop Live
functionality need to be protected? Or do we need to safeguard package
updating functionality specifically?

Anything that is likely to be difficult/impossible to recover from deserves special consideration, but really the process should just make it difficult to skip the updates-testing step. If something is important enough security-wise that it can't spend the usual amount of time in testing then it is important enough to get at least a couple of people to agree that it is both necessary and safe. If things that have been in testing for some time break then you are sort-of justified in blaming someone else...

But, as I've mentioned before, I think you'd get much better public participation in testing if yum could do repeatable updates. That is, I'm only interested in testing exactly the update that I will later do on my own more critical machine(s) and I'm not interested enough to maintain my own mirrored repository which is currently the only way to get exactly the same set of programs installed on 2 different machines at different times. I'd probably dedicate a test machine or at least a vmware image and I suspect many others would too if they knew they could reproduce what they were testing with a simple update command on the more important machines.

  Les Mikesell
   lesmikesell gmail com

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