On Fri, 10 Feb 2006, Mike McCarty wrote:
Jesse Keating wrote:
On Fri, 2006-02-10 at 17:54 +0200, Pekka Savola wrote:
So, instead of adding more hoops ("please, install a virtual image of all
the other distros and do verify testing etc. there"), most focus should be
put on making participation easier.
I am trying to make it easier. I'm trying to make it so that people
don't have to use their production systems as package fodder for our QA
That's the primary reason I haven't volunteered for testing for FC2.
I have an FC2 machine which I don't want to clobber. Isn't that
the *reason* Legacy exists? We don't want to clobber our machines.
I'd suspect most folks should have dozens if not hundreds of systems
running, and are willing to experiment with a couple of them (or have
a couple of experimental boxes set aside) in order to get the tested
updates shipped to the rest of the systems once the updates have been
approved.
Jim Popovitch wrote:
I have to agree with Jesse, there is no way automated testing will
work. There are just too many differing issues from patch to patch.
Jim, you're probably missing the fact that VERIFY QA doesn't include
the steps "test if the patch worked; test if the vulnerability is
fixed". While some folks do perform more rigorous testing, it's not
required, and for a good reason.
Which one is better, not shipping any updates at all (or after months
and months of delays), or shipping "looks good" updates quickly and
fixing them (if issues come up) even faster?
Aiming for perfection doesn't cut it. Contrary to common beliefs, FL
doesn't have the resources for thorough testing that some vendors have
the luxury of. That's why we employ those vendors' fixes directly :-)
--
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
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
