On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 12:53 PM, David Sommerseth
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Not going to argue that this could have been done better, I agree with you
> here. On the other hand, maybe *that* is one reason it takes time to get this
> issue resolved too? That Red Hat QE is working on improving the situation,
> adding needed regression tests and so on for this use case. I know I'm
> speculating now, but I also know that these guys really do their best to avoid
> painful experiences for users and customers. Unfortunately, they do mistakes
> - as we all do from time to time.

Given the
https://git.centos.org/blobdiff/rpms!bind.git/d56ed2d3a2736a07a09c268f3b2607cca8f1b6ca/SOURCES!named-chroot.service
commit, there's probably a lot of hype in RH's QA marketing claims.
I'm not implying that there's no QA at all but, in this case, if there
was any, it sucked.