2008/12/10 Jesse Keating <jkeating(a)redhat.com>:
On Tue, 2008-12-09 at 18:22 -0600, Les Mikesell wrote:
> One way or another, if I were building a distribution that wanted to
> simultaneously claim that it is both new code and 'tested and working',
> I'd try to plan in a way that it wasn't a flip of the coin on every
> machine which you'll get today.
Now here's a crazy idea, that nobody seems to want to follow:
Treat rawhide as your 'new code' land, leave the release trees as your
'testing and working' code. That is don't be so goddamn eager to push
new packages and new upstream releases to every freaking branch in
existence.
Of course, when I make suggestions like these, I become extremely
unpopular.
Not to me. +1
Regarding +/-,
Can new packages default accordingly?
+1 rawhide
0 testing
-1 stable
(or, +2, 0, -2... you get the idea)
Then, the voting system does what it's supposed to do!!!
Maybe analogous to pkg submitter, sponsor, review, etc - other sets of
eyes, taking ownership of action....
In other words, push back some of the "goddamn" ownership where it
belows, instead of the front-end where testers and **end-users** have
to do cart-wheels to fix things.
And, don't start crying, "aww, we just don't have time..."
boo-f*(&ing-hoo. Neither do the rest of us.
But, working together, the system should balance itself - when the
votes happen it's a good package, when they don't it means, go figure,
more testing needs to be done, and help should be requested
accordingly.
See the efficiency there? The few request help *forward*, rather than
the masses, in a panic, requesting help *backwards*...
jerry
p.s. I only started those sentences with conjunctions for the sake of
time. Please don't try this at home! :-)
--
Store in cool, dry place. Rotate stock.