Patrice Dumas (pertusus(a)free.fr) said:
> Not really. I use Fedora every day. The fact that I use it for
packaging
> things is a small small part of my usage of it. The extra 2 minutes or so
> to twiddle an update differently is far far far outweighed by, say, X
> exploding. Or thunderbird eating mail. Or any other variety of things that
> could happen.
That's not what I was implying. What I was implying is, if packager
productivity diminishes, it impacts all the users since there is
less packager work done.
Not necessarily. From what you state below about your (former?)
packages, if your productivity was diminished by some random number
of minutes/hours, it would likely not affect me, or a large percentage of
our users, at all.
> Wait. You don't want policies designed to avoid pushing
regressions, so
> that you can push fixes for the regressions you've given to people faster?
>
> That's... impressive.
Regressions happen whatever policies are done. Imagine a specialized
package that hasn't any tester besides the maintainer (though it
has users), this was the case for most of the packages I maintained
in Fedora. A user wait for X days to have a package pushed that fixes
a bug. It introduces a regression which is detected by a user who
uses the stable release and not updates-testing. Should the users
wait X days before the regression is fixed?
1) You're ignoring any possiblity of improving the testing
2) What in the policy defined a number of days?
Bill