On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 08:19:25 -0800, Adam wrote: > 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* You can get a full quote: | 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 | feedback for every single package because there's just too many, but if | they notice breakage, they file negative feedback. | | 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. | | This is why what winds up getting proposed to FESco is probably going to | be something along the lines of *either* acquiring a certain level of | positive feedback *or* sitting in testing for a few days without | acquiring any negative feedback. So you can either submit your update | and wait a few days to push it, or submit it and ask a couple of people | to test it and post positive feedback, and then you'll be able to push | it immediately. It doesn't change anything, though. No feedback => nothing to rely on. These recent discussions on this list could have been fruitful, btw. For some people it has become a game of "I'm right - you aren't", unfortunately. -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
