On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 02:06:33PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 17:04 +0100, Till Maas wrote: > > > I mind have misunderstood it, but afaics it only says that it will be > > tested, because it spent time in updates-testing, but this is not even > > true nowadays, even if packages stay long in updates-testing. > > as we've explained several times, most packages that go to > updates-testing for a few days *are* being tested, even if they get no > apparent Bodhi feedback. Several QA group members run with > updates-testing enabled and so get all packages (that they have > installed) which go through updates-testing. They do not file positive If it is limited on the packages the user is installed, a lot of packages are not tested. > feedback for every single package because there's just too many, but if > they notice breakage, they file negative feedback. So here is a first ugly script to easily give feedback for all installed testing updates that were created after a certain date (I did not find an easy way to get all testing updates, one did not yet comment on): http://till.fedorapeople.org/tmp/give-feedback.py It kind of works like this: Show the update, ask for karma to create a comment, otherwise it is skipped. Then a comment needs to be entered. Sometimes it will ask for the FAS password using the bodhi client. Update: rpmdevtools-7.8-1.fc12 Comment? -1/0/1 ->karma, other -> skip> 1 Comment> "rpmdev-newspec foo" still works The prompt has readline support, so if you just want to use the same comment again and again, you can use cursor-up to get the comment again. Btw. the script fails in case only subpackages of a package are installed. But if it is used, I will create a saner version. Nevertheless, there is also now the Fedora Engineering Service, so if you want to improve your testing tools, you might want to ask there. > So - for the third time - a package being in updates-testing for a few > days and getting no negative feedback is a moderate strength indicator > that it's not egregiously broken. Not a super-strong indicator, but > better than a kick in the teeth. It probably only means that the meta-data of the installed package is not broken, but if they do not use all packages installed daily, then there is not much test coverage. Regards Till
Attachment:
pgpv5z7DU3Jwa.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
