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

[Les Mikesell]

Jeff Spaleta wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 10:47 PM, Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler at chello.at> wrote:
>> How's that different from updates-testing?
> 
> It's update-testing with time based flushes to stable with an
> infrequent flush rate instead of the stochastic flushing to stable
> that we do now.
> 
> But the bulk of what he wants is for older stable update to continue
> to available to be able to downgrade to if a stable update becomes
> 'known bad' at some point. Instead of pushing yet another update for
> 'known bad' updates, he wants to back out to a previous 'known good'
> update..assuming it isn't marked as 'known bad' as well.  I feel there
> is a logical fallacy lurking here concerning how things are classified
> as 'known bad' but I'm too tired right now to try to articulate it.

Actually I'd leave it up to the packager as to how to best fix the bug - 
and would usually expect it to be yet another update with numbering 
going forward with either a fix or a backout of some problematic change.
There would just have to be a way to mark the 'fixed' version to be 
installed without the delay, bypassing the one it replaces.

That's sort of optimistic, but at least it gives a second chance to fix 
things before they hit machines that you can't afford to break.  And a 
user would have a choice of which machine he would use to test on.

-- 
   Les Mikesell
    lesmikesell at gmail.com