How about releasing an update of xorg-x11-drv-intel for Fedora 11

[Dave Airlie]

On Thu, 2009-10-15 at 17:27 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > If you know that you would _never_ be happy with a test-update becoming
> > a stable update, then either don't push such a test-update or unpush
> > it (manually or by relying on karma automatism).
> 
> That was my point!
> 
> > However, it could be that you would need to offer a test-update for two or
> > more months before you would get essential feedback that helps with
> > deciding whether it's safe to mark it stable or not.
> 
> So we only disagree about the timelines. IMHO 2 or more months is way too 
> long. You should not need that much time to know whether the update is 
> broken or not! The big problem is that many months is almost 
> indistinguishible from "never" for all practical purposes. If you enabled 
> updates from testing, you're still stuck with no upgrade path unless you 
> stick with testing forever. The main advantage of putting strong time limits 
> on testing is to provide an upgrade path for one-time testers back to the 
> stable stream.

2 months is too long for user apps maybe, for X.org or Mesa from what I
can see for ever probably isn't long enough, its not a matter of how
much time something spends in updates-testing its a matter of how many
people run what is in there and report on it. We get a lot of QA from
the community on the run-in from Beta to GA, however we get nothing at
all even close post-GA, so finding regressions post-GA is close to
impossible without it hitting updates.

you can get lots of +1s easily finding the -1 that matters is hard.

Dave.