On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 16:45:36 -0500, Bill wrote: > > > To phrase a strawman differently: > > > > > > "No update is pushed to users without verification and testing from entities > > > other than the packager." > > > > No, thanks. The "popular"/"high profile" packages will get their usual > > rushed +1 votes in bodhi (from people who even download from koji without > > waiting for an entire package set to be published in a repo - from people > > who regularly vote +1 even when something is clearly broken). And > > less-popular packages will suffer. > > Again, that's just a "testing isn't working as well as we want right > now, so let's just not bother with it at all because it might > incovenience me" response. Not at all. Go and take a look at how I've used testing/stable pushes before. I just fear that I will be degraded to a package monkey, who must obey more and more rules - arbitrary rules - just to please an updates system OR the people who love needless bureaucracy (such as updates-testing for F13 development, IMO). When I submit an update request, I want to be done with it, so I can move on and focus on more important stuff. I don't care whether any integrated package sanity checks are run on the submitted packages, or whether it takes a day or several days for a push to happen. If something is wrong with the package and a person or tool reports it to me, fine, I'll take a look. Provided that it's no silly rules like Notes field is empty (even if bugzilla ticket links are present and %changelog contains good entries), a missing link to an online ChangeLog, enforced delays before something may be marked stable, or mandatory positive karma from testers. > If that's the sort of defeatist attitude people really want to take, > it's sad. Sad? It's sad if one cannot earn more trust and retain the freedom to make the most out of existing tools and infrastructure. Some of the off-topic parts of this thread are unbelievable. > > > Consider it a second eye. > > > > If there is a volunteer tester, who also takes responsibility when not > > noticing regression caused by an update, fine. If there is no volunteer, > > who will lend the update submitter a second eye? Either there are > > resources or there aren't. > > I said entities above. Could be testers. Could be releng. Could be a > battery of autoQA tests. Three times "Could". Let's talk about it when you know something definite, please, but before it will become another hurdle. -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
