On Tue, 14 Jun 2005, Jim Popovitch wrote:
On Tue, 2005-06-14 at 10:55 +0300, Pekka Savola wrote:
Remember, almost all patches we use come from ***already QA'd
sources***.
So why do inexperienced people need to do more Q&A on those packages?
So that at least someone has tested that the application seems to
work. The application has compiled, it doesn't crash outright with
basic functionality, etc. -- that's trivial testing but it has
non-trivial impact.
If we add tools to the mix (e.g., ways more easily to detect if the
file list provided by the package, dependencies, libraries, etc. have
changed), we've achieved a great deal.
Personally, I'd be OK with just publishing "trivial updates" if built
by a trusted developer without any QA at all, but trivial QA like
above should be doable by any FL user, might help get the community
more involved with the project, etc.
For more critical updates, or patches we create on on our, I agree it
would be strongly desirable to get more QA -- but unfortunately even
that doesn't seem to be happening all that often.
--
Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
--
fedora-legacy-list@xxxxxxxxxx
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
