On Wed, Apr 11, 2007 at 10:36:23AM -0400, Jesse Keating wrote: > On Wednesday 11 April 2007 09:20:37 Axel Thimm wrote: > > You only test whether it builds, not whether it runs. To continue the > > bridge-utils example: If it is busted and only shows that it is once > > you try to setup STP on the bridge, who will teh continuous rebuild > > show you that? You can only do that by either investing in-house QA > > for every package update you are going to ship (and we know that these > > are going to be a loadful per week), or do so in advance during the > > development/testing cycle. > > No, I said the continuous rebuild pared with automated testing of what falls > out of that. The same automated testing that could be applied to any other > build of a package. This is a much broader need. Whatever testing can be automated belongs to %check or similar. The real-life testing can't be automated, and makes the real difference. Even for the bridge-util example above the run time test units would involve several pieces of real hardware to be tested on. And no, xen bridges don't count, because they are broken. That's why you want this to be in rawhide and not in some optional-whoever-is-kind-enough-should-please-use-this-repo-of-rebuilds. Some people argue that it will make a difference to harbor Matt's rebuilds under the fp.o umbrella, e.g. bless them with a Fedora stick. I really doubt that a change of domain name and other marketing gags would bring the testing body required. We only have a limited amount of testers, and two rawhides are one too much. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpr4IDeFw9mF.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- Fedora-maintainers mailing list Fedora-maintainers@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers
-- Fedora-maintainers-readonly mailing list Fedora-maintainers-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers-readonly
