On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 2:18 PM, Robert Schweikert <rjschwei(a)suse.com> wrote:
@ ALL TECHNICAL CONTRIBUTORS/DEVELOPERS (sorry for
- 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
- very likely
- 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.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org
To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner(a)opensuse.org