Matthias Clasen wrote:
> But presumably we still want to test the fix, to avoid introducing yet
> another regression ?!
[snip]
> Just go up to your first argument: the breage slips through. That is
> exactly what happens if your judgement of 'low risk' turns out to be
> wrong. And it will...
[snip]
> Again: go up. Breakage always happens to somebody else. That one person
> tested the fix is not enough.
Quite the opposite, the regression happened DESPITE going through testing,
it shows that testing didn't help. So why would forcing everything to go
through testing prevent breakage?
Of course evaluating the risk vs. the urgency is important, but I think
there are quite a few cases where getting the update out ASAP is the best
solution.
For example, if an application is completely broken due to an update and
nobody noticed that during testing, then why should the fix have to go
through testing? It can't make things worse if the app is already broken,
and clearly nobody is using both updates-testing and that app.
Kevin Kofler
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
