Les Mikesell wrote:
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
Problem: We need more and wider testing. Why don't we get more
testing?
.. because this work is not attractive. It's boring work without
proper credit in open source community.
Right. Furthermore, testing implies finding bugs, discussing,
struggling
and arguing with package maintainers and upstreams. Not necessarily a
way to make friends :)
However, I think the primary cause in is Fedora's work-flow and
Fedora's
infrastructure. I find them not to be really helpful to such
endeavors.
I do think Windows has improved a lot since they added the crash
reporter. OS X has one
These are closed source OSes - They don't have any alternative but such
"user participation programs" - OSS has alternatives.
Beg your pardon, but having the option (requirement?) to fix broken
stuff myself has never been all that appealing to me as an aspect of
open source. I look to it more for the benefits of re-using code that
is already well tested. Of course that doesn't work out all that well
in a project that keeps changing things...
- and I though Ubuntu included one too although I haven't seen
anything trip it.
Gnome had one for many years (bug-buddy), ... I don't recall having seen
it providing any substantial improvement to Gnome.
Now the kernel also has one (kerneloops) ... We'll see if it will
provide improvements.
How does that work? I'd think a dead kernel or one that doesn't boot
would have a hard time reporting it's problems.
A kernel oops is not a crash and it doesn't render the kernel
unbootable. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_kernel_oops .
My expectations on such tools are very low. Many users switch them off
and developers/maintainers tend to ignore them as noise.
If the developers ignore the information, then at least they should
stop blaming the lack of testers for the lingering bugs.
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
