Michal Hlavinka wrote:
I like this idea, but I'm pretty sure this won't happen. I
don't like the
bureaucracy you can see all around you. Fixing problems caused by
individual failure (or individual's failure) with new policy/law does not
make happy contributors/people. This is the exact behavior of Civil
Aviation Authority in my country - after 50 years of no problems there is
one a***ole that kills himself because of ignoring physics and
self-preservation, as result all sane normal people have to do more
paperwork and are more restricted. The only result is pilots are more and
more fed up every year. And know what, there are still people willingly
breaking the rules so it does not solve anything.
+1, so true (and sad). :-(
(BTW, it's not just your country, they just get it dictated from the EU.
It's the same all over Europe, and it's worse on the other side of the
Atlantic.)
Another comment: When I started to work for Fedora, I tried to do my
best.
You know, there are some comparisons of OSes and distributions. One of the
comparisons being "How many days OS was vulnerable (with known exploitable
security bug)". So when there was new CVE-XXXX-YYYY bug, I tried to fix it
as fast as possible, because I wanted to make Fedora The Best Distro. But
what happened after I fixed this bug? It took whole week before new build
was tagged. Should I work hard if there is no visible result? I was
disappointed. Now, packages are tagged quickly and reliably, great
improvement (thanks to everyone who helped with this). But again, after
things were better we have new policy that delays all bug fixes from being
delivered quickly and I'm disappointed again.
Indeed, these new PITA policies are very demotivating!
This idea would make users less happy, at least from what I see.
I manage a few Fedora systems for my friends/relatives who have almost
no IT knowledge nor they can use English. They don't care about
open-source and other "freedoms". They use Linux just because it's free
and usable (they always compare it with m$ windoze they used before). In
real world, bugs happen, they don't care too much about bugs in sw, if
there is visible progress. If they found a bug, they complain to me and I
file it in bugzilla. Once the bug is fixed, I report these wonderful news
to them and they are really happy. But... remove the "bug fix delivered to
Fn-1" and they won't be happy, in fact they would think that Linux sucks.
Restriction to most critical bugs only is not enough. And no, updating all
machines every 6 months is too much disturbing (for them) and time
consuming (for me).
Indeed. I think it's a big mistake to provide only second-class support for
Fn-1. The assertion that that's what the people on Fn-1 want is just
unfounded, based on a misunderstanding of why people use Fn-1.
this could help, but it's not always possible to add these test
cases. One
example: imap server package - new bug that can corrupt mail folders in
some circumstances. Maintainer updates package and sets 'type=bugfix' in
bodhi, but not always it's possible to write down any test case. It's
still a bug fix and it's better to be delivered sooner than wait if anyone
out there get's his mail folders corrupted. Actual policy does not help
proactivity.
Right, and the big point there should be that a bug which can corrupt mail
folders should be fixed IMMEDIATELY, i.e. with a direct stable push! ANY
testing requirement there is a failure.
> Other concrete ideas?
let maintainer decide, punish (enforce any policy) only those maintainers
who breaks something, not all innocent group
+1!
Kevin Kofler