F8 kernel-2.6.24.3-12.fc8

[Andrew Farris]

Gary Thomas wrote:
> Andrew Farris wrote:
>> Anders Karlsson wrote:
>>> * Andrew Farris <lordmorgul at gmail.com> [20080310 12:18]:
>>> [snip]
>>>> Again.. as has been stated previously by people with authority 
>>>> around here (which I am not)... testers did not provide proper 
>>>> feedback on this kernel, via the tooling in place for it [1].  
>>>> Proper QA is not the responsibility of someone else.  It is the 
>>>> responsibility of the community.  People's lack of participation in 
>>>> how the system works are their own failure in this case.
>>>
>>> So the Fedora process is;
>>> "If *we* break it, it's *your* fault because *you* did not test it" ?
>>>
>>> I stand by my earlier comment that this shows little but contempt for
>>> the userbase.
>>>
>>>> Fedora devs have *countless* times proven they care what the users 
>>>> think about this type of situation, but users who only share what 
>>>> they think after shit breaks are useless to everyone.
>>>
>>> Oh, I'm sorry. I thought that the idea was to have a three-tier system
>>> with stable, testing and unstable repos (to borrow terms from Debian),
>>> where the idea is to run stable if you intend on doing something
>>> productive, testing if you participate in QA and unstable if you like
>>> living on the edge.
>>
>> That is in inaccurate picture which probably has alot to do with your 
>> frustration over this.  Debian's unstable and testing are completely 
>> separate repos not intended to get flowed together at a regular 
>> timeframe.  Fedoras are meant to be very temporary, for testing.  
>> Updates-testing is a place where things desperately need testing 
>> interaction so they can be pushed because they are only there because 
>> they fix known bugs... not because its new stuff that happens to be 
>> unstable and is not getting dropped into the primary repo.
> 
> If this is the expectation, why not enable updates-testing by default
> or at least encourage users to use it more?  I for one have never
> had it enabled (I do lots of rawhide testing though) as I was not aware
> of its nature or need.

I think there probably does need to be alot more effect made at publicizing 
updates-testing and the need for feedback through bodhi.  It should not be 
enabled by default because 'users' who aren't part of the feedback process, and 
who don't know how to recover from issues like this, should not be installing 
updates-testing.  I've always immediately enabled updates-testing on any stable 
Fedora install I do for myself, but at present I only have rawhide installed on 
machines.  It is not a painful process to help provide updates-testing feedback; 
the vast majority of the packages end up stable and are not broken like this one 
was.  Anyone who keeps reasonable backups of their data, and can handle manually 
removing a package (and be able to decide which one was the problem), should be 
using updates-testing in my opinion.

-- 
Andrew Farris <lordmorgul at gmail.com> www.lordmorgul.net
  gpg 0xC99B1DF3 fingerprint CDEC 6FAD BA27 40DF 707E A2E0 F0F6 E622 C99B 1DF3
No one now has, and no one will ever again get, the big picture. - Daniel Geer
----                                                                       ----