F8 kernel-2.6.24.3-12.fc8

[Josh Boyer]

On Fri, 7 Mar 2008 18:28:17 +0100
"David Nielsen" <gnomeuser at gmail.com> wrote:

> 2008/3/7, Jarod Wilson <jwilson at redhat.com>:
> >
> > On Friday 07 March 2008 10:51:25 am Benjamin Kreuter wrote:
> > > On Thursday 06 March 2008 19:29:23 Chuck Ebbert wrote:
> > > > Sorry, we had to release with known bugs. A new kernel will be in
> > > > updates-testing very shortly.
> > >
> > > Why did you have to release with known bugs?  Why not just wait until
> > the
> > > bugs are fixed?  The last three kernel updates broke suspend for me...
> >
> >
> > Uh... If we waited until all the known bugs were fixed, we'd never release
> > *any* kernel... :)
> >
> > Despite this kernel making my own iwl4965 unusable, I was fully in favor
> > of
> > releasing it. In theory, we fixed more problems than we caused, and you're
> > always welcome to keep running the prior kernel. (I'm actually running a
> > slightly modified 2.6.24.2-7.fc8 now).
> 
> 
> I don't think anyone expects perfection, but when breakage goes so far as to
> encourage users to petition against an update being marked stable we might
> want to reconsider deploying. Not doing so reflects poorly on Fedora as a
> project to users in that our update policy looks dangerous to them and
> discourages testers from reporting problems since their experience will be
> that they are being ignored.

We have an official way to protest an update.  You go in the update
system and give it bad karma.  If a package gets -3, it gets
auto-unpushed.  At the moment the kernel is not exempt from this.

This particular update had a karma level of -1 when it was pushed.  If
only two more of you on this thread had bothered to use the mechanisms
we have in place it would have been unpushed.  So while I understand
your frustration, it seems to be a bit out of place to deride the
kernel developers for releasing something that people couldn't be
bothered to mark as bad.

josh