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.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell at gmail.com