On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 18:14:47 +0100
Alex Hudson <fedora(a)alexhudson.com> wrote:
Hey Kevin,
On Tue, 2010-09-21 at 15:47 -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> How can we clarify the language or the layout of the page to be more
> clear? Are there places that it could be more like the existing
> package update howto page? Could we be more detailed about what
> bodhi enforces and whats just good practice?
I think there's one thing missing: some discussion about the guiding
principles about where these rules came from.
Well, there is the Boards vision that this came out of:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Stable_release_updates_vision
So, for example, we have these use cases for Fedora which involves
information working on the desktop, so the guiding principles for the
stable release ought to be about those users being generally happy and
having a desktop that is working reliably day-by-day.
Yes, but I also see the same for the server side... server admins hate
having to tweak config files after an update to get a service back up
too.
From those types of principles, exceptions like "update
clamav" and
"update to Firefox 4 because it's the only secure release" become a
lot more obvious: our users need a working secure desktop, and
updates are about the balancing act between "fixing existing
problems" and "risk of introducing new problems".
Right.
While the various rules about karma and updates in series are really
useful, they're more like a set of codified statements about what
risk/reward ratio we think maintainers ought to be considering in
order to fix problems or introduce new features. But if we focus too
hard on them, we risk losing sight of the wood for the trees: I think
they're great for calibrating the risk, but we need to remember what
the goal actually is.
Absoletely. Can you think of anything specific to add to the updates
policy that would express this? We do have a Philosophy section... can
you re-work that to express this?
kevin