On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 11:22 PM, Mike McGrath <mmcgr...@redhat.com> wrote: > On Mon, 23 Aug 2010, Bill Nottingham wrote: > >> Mike McGrath (mmcgr...@redhat.com) said: >> > > My concern with this line of thinking is that you're asking us to >> > > quantify >> > > the unknown unknown, and define a time period of testing which is >> > > 'long enough' for us to catch all the unknown unknowns. This seems >> > > impractical, in as much as it doesn't give us any clear criteria to >> > > define >> > > success with. >> > >> > It's just risk management. I think we'd be better off acknowledging there >> > are unknown unknowns and try to mitigate them. >> >> Sure, but when you say 'we should hold off X period of time' in order to >> mitigate unknown unknowns, how do you define 'X'? How do you know when it's >> ready? All I'm seeing are appeals to gut feelings. We can all say that 'more >> time == more testing', but how do you claim 'good enough'? >> > > I'd say one release is good enough for Fedora. > >> > ready. Unfortunately that's not the path we seem to be on. We unwisely >> > seemed to declare it ready before anyone even saw it then we ignored what >> > we didn't know as if we knew there were going to be no problems. The sad >> > thing is that's such an easy fix by making brand new features for core >> > components like this opt in, even if it's just for a single release. >> >> Having to support multiple boot paths for the system, making everyone >> who gets odd bugs filed against kernel, dracut, plymouth, etc. triage them >> isn't exactly an 'easy fix' - it *adds* complication to both paths. >> > > I'd rather have multiple boot paths to choose from then only one boot path > that is 2 months old.
Being "2 months old" isn't a problem in itself ... bugs on the other hand might be if they can't be fixed in time (this does not include already fixed ones). -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
