|| ||Karel Zak <kzak-AT-redhat.com> |
|| ||Development discussions related to Fedora <devel-AT-lists.fedoraproject.org> |
|| ||Re: Proposed udpates policy change |
|| ||Tue, 9 Mar 2010 11:28:10 +0100|
|| ||Article, Thread
On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 09:59:29PM +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> This is the policy that I expect to be discussed during the Fesco
> meeting tomorrow. This is entirely orthogonal to the ongoing discussions
> regarding whether updates in stable releases should be expected to
> provide features or purely bugfixes, and I don't see any conflict in
> introducing it before those discussions have concluded.
You didn't explain (in your proposal) why we need this change. Do you
have any statistics about number of regressions and bugs that have
been introduced by untested/bad updates in F-11 and F-12?
I think all such changes should be always based on real experience and
statistics otherwise the change is premature optimization.
> We assume the following axioms:
0) Fedora strongly depends on well-motivated and non-frustrated
maintainers and open source developers. We want to increment
number of responsible maintainers who are able to use common
sense. Our mission is to keep maintainers happy otherwise we
will lost them and then we will lost users and our good position
in Linux community.
Our goal is to use technical arguments and don't introduce
non-technical discussions in our mailing lists.
> 1) Updates to stable that result in any reduction of functionality to
> the user are unacceptable.
> 2) It is impossible to ensure that functionality will not be reduced
> without sufficient testing.
> 3) Sufficient testing of software inherently requires manual
> intervention by more than one individual.
Always when I see that someone is trying to introduce a new rule I
have to ask myself ... why so large project like kernel is able to
successfully exist for 20 years without a huge collection of rules?
Karel Zak <email@example.com>
devel mailing list
to post comments)