Jeff Spaleta said: [snip] >> Communication is a good thing, but let's not get bent out of shape over >> one or two missed announcements. >> > > What your bar for getting bent out of shape? > What I'm bent out of shape about...is dave jone's comment in this thread: > > > "It'll move from updates/testing to updates proper today/tomorrow. > No-one seems to be screaming about the testing kernel, so either no-one has > tested it, or it's perfect 8)" > > > No-one seems to be screaming...because the competent people who know > enough to test for regressions didn't get told. Might as well just stick > the damn package directly into updates-released, and be done with it. IMHO the packages that are taking that method (and there seem to be quite a few) are a bigger issue than missing updates-testing announcements. I also think you are missing Dave's point that he isn't getting any feedback about it either. Communication goes both ways. You can say that it is because he didn't "officially" announce it, but you won't ever convince me of that. > That > will shut up the people screaming for a fix rather nicely, without the > token wait for people to test it. If the intent was actually to wait and > release this after a fair attempt to get regression feedback..its wasted > waiting, if there isn't an effort as a matter of testing update policy to > get an annoucement out. Expecting feedback when no annoucement is made > beforehand gets us nowhere. Again, I don't disagree that announcements are needed. As the fedora-legacy experiment is showing, though, the community isn't ready to do testing and QA. People that care about testing should be checking out updates-testing occasionally. Getting announcements about every package being available isn't going to fix the lack of a broad range of people willing to do testing. At this point, move updates out of testing on a time basis is the only way any updates are going to get out there. -- William Hooper
