On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 2:18 PM, Robert Schweikert
@ ALL TECHNICAL CONTRIBUTORS/DEVELOPERS (sorry for shouting) - If we collectively manage to "calm" factory down to the point where it will always boot and you do not have to fiddle with the very low level, kernel, bootloader, glibc , X11, things after doing "zypper dup" would you be
- inclined - very likely - unlikely - very unlikely
to switch to factory on your every day working machine?
I currently run factory in a VM all the time, but explicitly for testing my packages, so it is lightly used and a couple months can go by without me firing it up. I currently migrate my desktop to factory at either the beta or RC1 stage depending on what is showing up as most annoying bugs. Even with all these staging projects, will there be a need for a process like the kernel has where massive submits are allowed/encouraged for a period of time, then a stabilizing period would start? After all, just because things build doesn't mean the run well. Maybe SRs of major sub-systems could be restricted to the firs 7 days of each month. In that case, I would avoid updating at the start of each month. If I had factory installed and if periods of turmoil and stability could be defined, I would want to wait to do updates until a stability period started and a green light came from someone to say the major new functions are in and things seem to be working well. Thus if the only aspect of this that got pushed was staging projects, I would still avoid factory with the assumption that it has to be turmoil at certain phases of the development cycle. If a well-defined way existed for me to avoid those periods of turmoil I would give factory a shot. fyi: my preference would be for the zypper up process to have a mechanism to detect periods of turmoil and ask me explicitly if I wanted to update during those periods. Greg -- Greg Freemyer -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org