On Thu, 2009-08-13 at 17:56 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote: > For me it isn't. I won't spend extra time on writing special summaries > for a test-update, if nobody contributes any testing. FWIW you almost certainly _are_ getting some testing. There are definitely users on -test-list who run with -updates-testing enabled permanently and hence run all updates-testing packages (that they have installed, anyway). In most cases, however, they don't give positive feedback when everything works, because the current mechanism makes it too clumsy (go to bodhi, log in because it _will_ have forgotten you again, find the update, type 'yay it works!' in the box, submit, rinse and repeat for the next twelve updates). That's a process problem, we need to make it easier to give a simple 'thumbs up' feedback. Where things are broken, negative feedback usually does come through (whenever someone sends something with broken dependencies to updates-testing, for instance, someone yells about it on test-list and in bodhi quite quickly, most of the time). > Once the update has > been marked stable, it's too late. It will be installed by some users > "blindly". Sure, some, but not all. It doesn't have to benefit everyone to be a good idea, just a decent amount of people. > They won't base any decision on reading the update > description. Not even the list of affected bugzilla tickets in bodhi > implies that the fixes are correct or won't cause side-effects. A > minor feature addition might cause the software to crash in untested > environments. True. > The update description doesn't add any quality. False. Don't make the perfect the enemy of the good. The fact that update descriptions are 'fallible' in the ways you describe does not make them useless. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
