warning to list

[Matias Féliciano]

Le lundi 25 octobre 2004 à 12:08 -0400, Paul Iadonisi a écrit :
> On Mon, 2004-10-25 at 10:06, Matias Féliciano wrote:
> 
> [snip]
> 
> > Please... I not chose to *ignore* those warnings.
> > You are ignoring that using a test release is the _best_ way to test it
> > and be fully happy with the finale release when it's out. The point is
> > not to be happy with a test release but with the finale release.
> > 
> > The propose of test release can be see as :
> > - find stupid boys (like me), or girls, which use test release and file
> > bug report.
> > - provide some support (bugfix, mailing, etc) to not make it a total
> > disaster.
> 
>   Well, I suppose that's an okay way of looking at it, but methinks you
> need to make up your mind.  Are you ignoring the warnings not to use
> this on a 'critical' system, or is your desktop that you have it
> installed on *not* a critical system.

My desktop is a critical system for _me_. It's up to me to decide what
to install on it (and thank to Red Hat to inform me about what this
imply).
btw, I have not replace FC2 by FC3T2. First I install FC3T2 along my
rock solid FC2. I test FC3T2 and when I have the feeling that FC3T? is
solid enough, it become my default desktop and next I remove FC2.
To use or not FC3T? for a "critical-mission" (like my desktop) is up to
me.
off-topic: my desktop is critical to me because I have only one PC at
home and use it for Internet, mail, watching/recording TV/DVD, desktop
stuff...

>   Can't have it both ways.
>   I was about to say that this has strayed far off topic, but adopting
> good testing practices seems pretty on topic for fedora-test-list.
>   It is true that the best way to test it is to use it.  I think that's
> pretty much a given.  And it's fine, and actually encouraged for testers
> to use it on a desktop they use on a regular basis.


> But rely on it to be secure or stable

I _never_ said that.

> and developers will probably point and laugh at
> you.  And justifiably so.  Of course they'll want to hear about security
> problems and other bugs.  After all, that's the whole point.  But if a
> test release eats your critical data for which you have no backups,

Beta/test or not, you _always_ need good backup. I have *2* backups
(nightly build). I archive all rawhide changes if I need to revert to an
old package. If some thing does wrong with the last rawhide, I can boot
with my previous backup. If it doesn't work, I can use my previous
previous backup.

>  or
> messes up your desktop so bad that your late on a project at work, no
> one is going to have any sympathy for you. Put it on a server serving
> hundreds or thousands of users who are not willing testers and
> developers will call you insane.
>   I apologize if I seem a bit antagonistic about this.  It's just that I
> see it as pretty important that people understand what testing means:

I understand what testing is. I use beta/test release since RH8.0. I
never complaint about it eat data.

> that your data may get eaten alive and no one will be able to save you
> from that.  That's at least partially what's meant when Red Hat says not
> to use it on critical systems.
>   And it's also important to understand what the Fedora Project is and
> how it differs from RHEL.


> RHEL *absolutely* *will* receive more attention from Red Hat than Fedora Core.

What are we talking ?
We are talking about beta/test.
I feel Red Hat put the same level of attention to Fedora test than they
put in RHEL beta. Perhaps a "different" attention.
Please, a Red Hat employer can confirm this ?

>   RHEL is the money maker.

Yes. And Fedora help improving RHEL (don't forget this). I think Red Hat
do a very good decision with the "couple" Fedora/RHEL.
But this decision does not imply that Red Hat should have two class of
testers :
- First class testers : RHEL (rpm signed, etc)
- second class testers : Fedora, don't care about this "class" of testers.

Let me try to summarise  (in my bad English).

It's up to me to decide to use a beta for a mission critical computer.
Right now, for my personal computer, I feel the risk is pay back because
this improve (I hope:-)) Fedora (and RHEL in a long run). And also
because I like enjoying with the latest technology.

By not signing their rpm in rawhide, Red Hat "force" me to take risk
(fake rpm, ...) for _nothing_. I don't want to take these risks.

> Fedora Core is the proving grounds.  That's the bottom line.  At least,
> that's how I see it.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Ceci est une partie de message num?riquement sign?e
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-test-list/attachments/20041025/bc7d90f3/attachment.sig>