On Mon, 2011-09-12 at 12:01 +0200, Matej Cepl wrote: > Dne 12.9.2011 11:26, Alex Hudson napsal(a): > > I view this as entirely equivalent to having a rule about not breaking > > trunk in version control: I don't know anyone who seriously argues that > > breaking a project compile is a good thing. Breaking the OS should be > > culturally identical - that it's a "development branch" or whatever is > > totally irrelevant. > > Too much QA (or any external QA) imposed on the development make it > slower.
I find it interesting that you can jump from "don't break the OS" to "too much QA". But that's beside the point. I'm not arguing that packages should be unavailable until some external QA OK's it (quite the opposite). I'm not even arguing for an individual packager QA process. Cultivating a culture of "don't break Rawhide" seems entirely sensible in that regard. Sure, *maybe* it might mean people do more testing and their individual development slows down a bit. But *maybe* having rawhide generally working would mean maintainers don't get blocked by other people's bad updates and overall get things done faster. Same for the pre-release branch. Breaking F16 should be serious business. Right now, it really isn't. "Eats babies" is just an excuse imho. Of course things will break now and then for some substantial group of users: but that should be a rare exception. Cheers Alex. -- This message was scanned by Better Hosted and is believed to be clean. http://www.betterhosted.com -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
