Timothy Murphy wrote: > Chris Jones wrote: > >> Also what makes you think anyone owes it to you to test *your* hardware >> for you before releasing updates - Fedora isn't RHEL you know, no >> support guarantees etc. > > I don't agree. > > If a developer makes a change which prevents the software working > with some hardware it previously worked with, > I think the onus is on the developer to warn the user of this. > You would have a valid point if you were running RHEL or one of the clones like centos. By definition, some changes in Fedora are going to break things for some people. > If the developer doesn't realize that his modification > will have this effect, he has made a mistake. > Considering the sometimes complex interactions between the kernel, udev, HAL, and your desktop manager, it is almost impossible to know how a modification is going to affect all machines. This is why we have testing. You can have a modification that works fine for the developer, works fine for the people that use the testing repos, but will still fail for a small percentage of the final users. > I very much doubt if anyone realized that going from 2.6.22.1-28 > to 2.6.22.1-33 could have any adverse effect. > This is why there is a testing process that starts with the developer, progresses to the testing repos, and finely moves to us. Because of the wide range of hardware/software, there is no way the developers can test it all. The testing repos give a wider range, but it still doesn't come close to the Fedora user base. I don't know about you, but part of the reason I am using Fedora is to help get the bugs out. Mikkel -- Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy and taste good with Ketchup!
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
