On Mon, 4 Jun 2007 21:33:58 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote: > > The picture of when exactly the mass-rebuild would happen and how > > much the the maintainers would be involved, is way too > > blurred. Talking about QA and lots of automated tests, we're not > > there yet. > > Right, so let's not test at all then. Close our eyes and ship a > product that has build stamps from over a period of seven months all > over. So pray instead of test? "It (re)builds, let's ship it, we need not test it" is an equally short-sighted strategy. A period of seven months? Seven months without a bug report? Seven months without the maintainer using his own package? Sounds good. Instead you get up to seven month without a bug report, probably because the package works fine, and then during the test releases when all the fans of stable releases don't participate, you rebuild something just for fun, creating a new testing-target. > > How do a devel cycle and a test period fit into this? If we test > > previously built packages on the road to a final product > > ... like for example 7 months ago, e.g. on FC6 ... Don't generalise. How compatible are our distribution releases with eachother? Why rebuild ABI-compatible components? > > that we want to ship, why do we rebuild packages although nothing > > wrong has been found with the binaries? > > Sure, let's ship the binaries and have the users find out. No testing? No QA? Is your mass-rebuild the only form of "testing"? =:-O Anyway, I try to end this thread here. If we somehow try to prepare binaries right in time before test1 in accordance with a clear roadmap, I'm fine with that. I still would like to see maintainers be the ones to touch packages if they need to be touched and not just for rebuild-fun. -- 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
