182 pending F11 stable updates. WTF?

[Seth Vidal]

On Fri, 8 May 2009, Mark McLoughlin wrote:

> On Fri, 2009-05-08 at 08:50 -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
>> On Fri, 2009-05-08 at 13:31 +0100, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2009-05-07 at 22:09 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>>>> On Thu, May 07, 2009 at 10:41:37AM -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
>>>>> How is it we have 182 stable updates pending for F11 already?  How have
>>>>> these seen any testing by a wider audience?  Are we really just not
>>>>> bothering with updates-testing anymore?  Do we not care about distro
>>>>> stability?
>>>>
>>>> I'll tell you the three reasons I'm pushing stuff directly to stable:
>>>>
>>>> (1) New package.
>>>>
>>>> (2) Update to a new package that I know not many people are using.
>>>
>>> This (2) is something we should try and figure out, IMHO. Trying to
>>> apply the same rules and guidelines to 8k+ packages doesn't work.
>>>
>>> There is a large set of packages which always should spend some time in
>>> updates-testing, but there's an even larger set of packages which it
>>> probably doesn't help at all. The same goes for the pre-GA development
>>> freeze.
>>
>> Fedora Core vs Fedora Extras ...
>
> Your point?
>
> That because we've merged Core and Extras we should never differentiate
> between packages based on "coreness" for anything ever again?
>

I think we shouldn't differentiate on 'coreness' b/c of how arbitrary 
that distinction is.

-sv