On 03/03/2010 02:47 PM, Seth Vidal wrote: > > > On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > >> >> So far, I haven't seen any indication of such a team being in existance >> (c.f. dnssec-conf, kernel) nor am I aware of any means for testing such >> perl-modules (perl-modules typically are equipped with a testsuite). >> >> The real testing is performed by Fedora users, them providing feedback >> and maintainers letting user feedback flow back into packages ASAP. > > That's exactly the provlem. The qa team hasn't had the time to do so and > the explosive set of updates makes it difficult to keep a handle on. > > Slowing them down and collecting them is to help that exactly. You violently don't want understand anything what I have been trying to say? I say: Your testing group will *never* be able to test much more than a very tiny subset of use cases -- Let them test their limited testing scenarios, but keep them out of the rest of testing. => Instead of slowing down things by deploying a testing group, speed up things by fixing bug ASAP and ban "FIX UPSTREAM" (Like you are usually doing). It might be news to you, but experience tells this kind of strategy converges towards "stability", in mid-terms. Your strategy leads to over-all less testing, more bureaucracy and low quality. >> Feel free to think so, however can not disagree more. >Ralf, we've never agreed on much of anything. Why should this be >different? What do you expect? I consider you (and a couple of other further members of FPB and FESCO) to be gradually running down Fedora, e.g. by advocating ever more regulations, installing more and more committees, and by trying to suppress the community. Ralf -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
