#1 Complaint about Ubuntu: Updates break things

[Kees Cook]

On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 08:57:58PM -0500, Cody A.W. Somerville wrote:
> To start the ball, I'll throw an idea out: the introduction of multi-tier
> system that would classify an update based on an agreed set of quantitative
> and qualitative criteria such as where the component falls in the stack (ie.
> distinction between the kernel, desktop environment, and an application),
> popcon score, etc. etc. Each tier would demand a different degree of
> testing, verification, time in -proposed, sign off from different parties,
> etc. That way we ensure appropirate people are looking at the SRUs,
> appropriate testing is occuring, and appropriate happiness is occuring! :)

Regressions are avoided by a larger variety of people doing testing.
Not enough people currently give feedback on -proposed.  Adding tiers
to -proposed would reduce the number of people testing each tier.  I think
this would result in a net loss.

I would propose that increasing the number of people giving feedback on
-proposed would be the better solution.  I don't have a specific plan
for how to implement that, but it seems that a tighter communication loop
between people using -proposed, LP, and a log of what they've installed
and when (some kind of additional bug-filing wizard) could reduce the
technical knowledge needed to provide useful feedback on proposed.
And let them revert/blacklist an update easily.

-- 
Kees Cook
Ubuntu Security Team