On Fri, 2007-06-01 at 17:16 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > On 01.06.2007 16:01, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > [...] > > Anybody being intimate with a SW probably is able to provide a case to > > expose a bug - So, what kind of additional quality would "testing" > > provide? I don't see any. > > * different users use software differently and thus hit different bugs users != testers > * some bugs might be arch specific -- I assume only a few of our > packagers have access to all the archs we support to test their packages > (especially when soon more arch come into the mix, which looks likely) Exactly. But a handful (or fewer) testers never reach the amount of testing mass exposure does. It the reason why so many kernel bugs exists: Neither upstream maintainers or @RH maintainers nor testers can test their setup. A handful of testers more doesn't help. > * some (¹) packagers test (²) a update only on one distribution and > build the software for different distributions -- there is a chance that > a bug happens only on one, but not on the others Yes, such situations are exist (I presume them to be the standard), but does a handful/few "testers", who have no clue about a package nor use for a package change anything about this? They might be able to find a very obvious bug 2 days earlier than mass exposure would, but they never will be able to find the bug which kills a system in specific setups. I've tripped such "testers scenarios" too often to find it useful. Ralf -- 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
