On Sat, 2010-11-20 at 11:23 +0100, Till Maas wrote: > On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 10:18:38PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > > > place. The idea was never that some magic independent group of testers > > would spend the rest of their lives doing nothing but test updates. > > This idea was never prominently communicated as the default > situation. Iirc it was said that there are lots of people who want the > update criteria and will test updates. Making package maintainers now > start to beg for their updates to be tested is imho just a big waste of > time. > Also there is no dispensable manpower from package maintainers > available, so requiring them to additionally test each other updates > manually and to maintain test machines is not a good idea. The whole > update criteria enforcement only works if there are enough dedicated > testers that provide extra manpower. Or if the testing is all automated. I'm looking back through the hideous fesco meeting discussions of this stuff and I don't see any suggestion that there would be "lots of people who want the update criteria and will test updates". Granted I may be missing it, but I can't find it. We set up the proven testers group to test *critpath* updates, they're not really expected to be any more likely to test non-critpath updates than anyone else; even there, the whole point of the proven testers group is to get as many people as possible to join, and from outside of QA. The last time we went through this I suggested to the KDE SIG that they have their members sign up as proventesters so they could test each other's packages, and I know that at least some of them did sign up; however, it appears that now they don't want to be bothered to do the testing, if what you're saying is true for the team. I really don't see how you can say that testing updates is a 'waste of time' with a straight face. It *takes* time, yes. It may be boring sometimes, yes. But a waste of time? Do you write your code perfectly first time, every time? Does it never have any bugs in it? Are you 100% confident when you run 'make' that everything's going to pop out the other end in perfect working order? Or sometimes, just sometimes, do you screw up, and when the compile fails or the built binary fails to run, you go 'oops, yeah, better fix that'? That's 'testing', and everyone does that (at least I really hope they do). Why wouldn't you want to do the same for packages? Just like code doesn't always come out right the first time, neither do packages. I really don't see why you think it's a great idea to push an update of the entire KDE desktop to a stable Fedora release without any of you actually installing it and checking that it *works*. (Now I see that Kevin posted a comment to the update claiming to have tested it, and it went through. As I said, I think that's fine, so long as he *actually* tested it; FESCo didn't think so, so if anyone wants to complain about it, or Luke stops you being able to test your own updates in Bodhi, we can have another fun argument about that. But at least *someone* booted the damn thing now!) -- 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
