R P Herrold wrote:
open and transparent QA process. I personally don't see any good reason why QA access should not be granted to ppl willing to help out.
My thoughts. I anticipate that an open QA process would:
- generate bug reports to the main mailing list,
(wrong place) causing reply firestorm of 'is FOO really broken' and all the echoes that make that list
I'd trade a lot of spurious noise on the mail list for extra chances to find out that FOO really is broken when dropped in certain real-world circumstances that may not be tested otherwise before being released to places that don't want surprises.
There are LOTS of reasons not to take on gratutious load -- these are my top of mind obvious ones. If people want to bleed, the NEED TO GO TO FEDORA so the changes flow back down in our future.
We are an enterprise rebuild as the core product. Nothing more
But you aren't _exactly_ the core product. There might be a hint of the difference in the latest kernel release but since only one person has mentioned the problem it isn't quite clear what it is.