On Thu, 2010-03-04 at 00:55 +0100, Till Maas wrote: > > 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. The types of breakage that most worry us are the ones where some update causes really big and obvious problems that affect lots of people. Happily, this is the kind of breakage you're most likely to get negative feedback on when it happens. :) So yes, the current process probably isn't very good at testing whether a given update does absolutely everything it's supposed to do, in all cases. It's not brilliant even at testing whether a given update works at all, if that update is a fairly obscure package. What it _can_ do reasonably well is catch the situation where an update mistakenly breaks the world - where you install it and then suddenly you can't boot or GNOME won't start or your network connection is broken or whatever. And that's the kind of thing we're really trying to prevent. I don't think a system where all updates had to stay in -testing for a few days would catch all update problems. We'd still probably ship some buggy updates. But hopefully we wouldn't again have the situation where we're standing around scratching our heads and thinking 'how the *hell* did that get shipped, when it breaks normal functionality for thousands of people?' -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
