Hi,
I think the better approach is to allow more updates, as Kevin suggested,
usually they fix more than they break.
I also think shorter freezes with unfreeze on slip are better than the
current approach of accumulated updates on release day.
>From my point of view, the best approach is rolling r
On Wed, 2015-11-04 at 20:03 -0600, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-11-05 at 02:16 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> > > 1) More time to catch regressions
> >
> > In theory. In practice, it mostly means more wasted time until a
> > regression
> > is FIXED, i.e., it
On Thu, 2015-11-05 at 02:16 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> > 1) More time to catch regressions
>
> In theory. In practice, it mostly means more wasted time until a
> regression
> is FIXED, i.e., it is entirely counterproductive. Many regressions
> are only
> noticed once
Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> 1) More time to catch regressions
In theory. In practice, it mostly means more wasted time until a regression
is FIXED, i.e., it is entirely counterproductive. Many regressions are only
noticed once the update goes stable, because that's when most users start
trying i
On Tue, 2015-11-03 at 02:13 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> > Yeah, that's the clear disadvantage. The service pack approach
> > sidesteps that problem: everything still goes out, just not so
> > soon, so
> > everything spends plenty of time in testing. All the bugs still ge
On 3.11.2015 02:13, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Michael Catanzaro wrote:
>> Yeah, that's the clear disadvantage. The service pack approach
>> sidesteps that problem: everything still goes out, just not so soon, so
>> everything spends plenty of time in testing. All the bugs still get
>> fixed, just not a
Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> Yeah, that's the clear disadvantage. The service pack approach
> sidesteps that problem: everything still goes out, just not so soon, so
> everything spends plenty of time in testing. All the bugs still get
> fixed, just not as fast.
And that's "better" HOW?
> (This als
Am 02.11.2015 um 00:36 schrieb Michael Catanzaro:
*who* if not the package maintainer which hopefully uses his own
packages should have the final say? some group of people not
understanding the issues really?
The counterargument is that we keep seeing major version updates that
violate our ex
To be clear, my email proposed two orthogonal solutions -- service
packs, and an oversight body to approve updates -- and here Reindl is
objecting to the later. We could do one or the other, or both, or
neither.
On Sun, 2015-11-01 at 23:31 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
> refrain from updates may kee
