On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 09:33:02 -0800, Adam wrote: > > No, not in a clear way. Instead, you keep emphasising that no negative > > feedback is not equal to a package not having been tested at all. That's > > just plain useless. Not even all broken deps are reported in bodhi. > > Why do you keep talking about 'all', as if the condition for success is > catching 'all' errors? That is your claim. In my comments it isn't universal quantification, but existential quantification (∃). There is an update, which is still without feedback after two weeks, and I cannot conclude anything about how much testing it may have seen. That's very different from your "[...] most packages that go to updates-testing for a few days *are* being tested, even if they get no apparent Bodhi feedback. [...]" > No testing process catches all errors, people > aren't perfect. By your criteria, all testing is useless. Not all. Twisting words isn't helpful. Trying to discuss with you is a lost cause, unfortunately. It is my strong impression that you know nothing about my point of view with regard to updates-testing. Perhaps you're chasing ghosts or something. And in these huge threads it is too late (and a waste of time) to even try to explain to individuals what I think about updates-testing. -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
