On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 11:26 AM, Alex Hudson wrote:
> 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 - t
On 09/12/2011 10:17 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> Sure, we need QA, but for rawhide the development shouldn't be totally
> stalled as it is already in F16 right now, where updates for critpath
> packages, even when they have several hundred thousands of tests
> performed already during package build
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 10:05:05AM -0400, Clyde E. Kunkel wrote:
> On 09/12/2011 06:01 AM, Matej Cepl wrote:
> > Too much QA (or any external QA) imposed on the development make it
> > slower. Compare Linux v. OpenSolaris kernel development. Fedora tries to
> > be very fast developing distro, thus
On 09/12/2011 06:01 AM, Matej Cepl wrote:
>
>
> Too much QA (or any external QA) imposed on the development make it
> slower. Compare Linux v. OpenSolaris kernel development. Fedora tries to
> be very fast developing distro, thus less QA in the development version.
>
Ah yes, the ol' QA conundrum.
On Mon, 2011-09-12 at 13:43 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> If something fails to COMPILE, this actually hinders development. In fact,
> I'm one of the first ones to yell if package builds in Rawhide are broken
> (due to some dependency breakage or whatever). Something failing to RUN is a
> wholely
Alex Hudson wrote:
> 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
Dne 12.9.2011 12:21, Alex Hudson napsal(a):
> I find it interesting that you can jump from "don't break the OS" to
> "too much QA".
Yes, because IMHO any (non-automatic) QA on Rawhide is too much.
> Same for the pre-release branch. Breaking F16 should be serious
> business. Right now, it really i
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. B
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
