On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 04:50:20PM -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Patrice Dumas (pertusus(a)free.fr) said:
> > > Bringinig down productivity of good packagers for a few bad ones, is,
> > > in my opinion, not a good move.
> >
> > Fedora doesn't exist for the productivity of packagers. It exists for
> > the productivity of our users.
>
> Both are related (except of course for people paid to work on
> fedora).
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.
> I fully agree with that. But pushing to stable rapidly may help
> correct rapidly regerssions, too.
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?
--
Pat