On Wed, 2008-11-19 at 14:26 -0600, Les Mikesell wrote: > James Antill wrote: > > > >> That may or may not be true and it may or may not matter. All you need > >> is some large representative sample doing the early testing and a way to > >> ensure feedback to improve everyone's experience. And letting users > >> control their exposure to new bugs might increase the user base in both > >> categories. > > > > This is what updates-testing _already does_. As Jesse has already said, > > there are two big problems: > > > > 1. Too many people want to be consumers of the testing but not the > > providers of it. > > I think that's an unwarranted assumption. How many people even know > about updates-testing compared to people that never change defaults? Certainly everyone in this thread knows about it. > How does someone using updates-testing ensure that their usage > 'provides' something? bodhi -k +1 -c 'pkg FOO, works for me' ...or even just leave the comment. > > Indeed IMO the whole updates-tested argument seems to devolve to "I'm > > going to be clever and switch to this, but I'm pretty sure a bunch of > > other people aren't going to know immediately and so will become my > > unwilling testers". > > No, the argument is this: > If I had a way to be moderately sure that my main work machine would be > usable every day running fedora and I could test things on a less > important machine, I'd be much more likely to run fedora more of the > time and on more machines. So subscribe your work machine to just updates, and your test machine to updates-testing ... what is the problem here? > > 2. The people who are the providers of the testing, aren't necessarily > > running the same kinds of workloads as the people who want to just be > > consumers of the testing. > > Exactly - it doesn't work that well as is. And even if I wanted to test > exactly the same work on exactly the same kind of machine, I don't think > I could predictably 'consume' that testing value - that is, there is no > way for me to know when or if a 'yum update' on my production machine is > going to reproduce exactly the software installed on my test machine. > (Personally I think this is a generic yum problem and it should provide > an option for reproducible installs regardless of what is going on in > the repositories, but that's a slightly different issue...). Sure, it's one of the many things on the TODO list to fix ... and with yum-debug-dump / yum shell / etc. there are a couple of ways of hacking this kind of thing in. However if you were running updates-testing refreshes fairly often then anything going into updates would be fine for you, by definition. -- James Antill <james@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Fedora -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
