On Thu, 2010-01-28 at 19:04 -0500, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
Jesse Keating writes:
> On Thu, 2010-01-28 at 17:58 -0500, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
>> Steve Dickson writes:
>>
>> > I guess I have a different definition of crap... ;-)
>> >
>> > I have been on both sides of these bugs... So I know (the hard way)
>> > when you push something out that breaks existing configurations, its crap!
>>
>> If you need to run stable software, Fedora is not the right distro for you.
>> You should consider switching to RHEL/CentOS, in that case.
>>
>
> Yet we should be striving to maintain stability within our stable
> releases. In fact, when we fail to deliver stable updates that's a
> reason to investigate to see what went wrong.
Agree, still, when something breaks it's not a reason to get emotional.
Stuff occasionally breaks. There's no need for an editorial, though, when
that happens. Put all the relevant details into Bugzilla, and post a capsule
summary in users@.
There was a clear failure in this process, though, which was that the
update was sent straight to updates and did not go through
updates-testing. I can't see any reason why that should be acceptable
for an update to a very popular package which manipulates data that is
obviously important to people (their email). Can a Thunderbird
maintainer please explain why this update did not go through the
updates-testing process?
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net