On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 14:38 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote: > > which go through updates-testing. They do not file positive > > feedback for every single package because there's just too many, but if > > they notice breakage, they file negative feedback. > > And they simply don't and can't notice all bugs and regressions. Audacious > 2.1 in F12 development apparently hasn't seen real testing before F12 was > released. Since then, bug reports have been flowing in. Same with > Audacious 2.2 that became sort of a mandatory upgrade, so I could reduce > the patch count. Only after it had been released as stable update, the bug > reporting started again. > > Too few users have updates-testing enabled. Too few bug reporters are > brave enough to enable updates-testing for a bug-fix referred to in > bugzilla. Thank you for the very selective quoting, wherein you carefully cut out all the bits where I explicitly acknowledged that the system does not catch all problems, and painstaking explained that this is not what we expect it to do, nor was anyone assuming that it did when the proposal to require packages go through updates-testing was made. That's a great way to have a productive discussion. *sigh* -- 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
