Re: The new Update Acceptance Criteria are broken

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Fri, 2010-11-12 at 23:14 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:

> 2. I screwed up and introduced a packaging bug, for instance bad
> dependencies or inability to "yum update".  That's been known to happen
> too.  But I have a lot more faith in autoqa being able to catch that
> kind of problem in a timely fashion than I do in manual testing catching
> it.

In the long run so do we, but right now, autoqa is not hooked up to the
build process in any way. It's manual testing or nothing.

> I guess what this boils down to is that I'd be happier with the testing
> process if it were actually successful at finding problems.  In my
> experience, it's a week's delay for exactly zero return.

It does find problems. Though, by what you say, not in your packages, so
I know where you're coming from; but we've certainly caught a positive
integer amount of bugs with the process. :)
-- 
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


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora Testing]     [Fedora Formulas]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kernel Development]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Desktop]     [PAM]     [Red Hat Development]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]
  Powered by Linux