On Sat, 2010-11-20 at 22:24 +0100, Miloslav TrmaÄ wrote: > Adam Williamson pÃÅe v So 20. 11. 2010 v 13:14 -0800: > > On Sat, 2010-11-20 at 20:30 +0100, Miloslav TrmaÄ wrote: > > > If the "something else" is more important than testing the update, > > > testing the updates truly is a waste of time. > > > > I don't disagree with anything you say, but the question of what's more > > important than testing an update is key. If an update's worth doing, > > it's worth testing. > .. and if it is worth testing, it is worth testing more, right? Erm, I didn't say that, don't put words into my mouth. > Yet one > has to stop sooner or later. Sure. That's why FESCo quite heavily toned down the testing requirements from the initial draft: the initial draft required all updates to have +3 karma to be pushed, remember. That was considerably reduced to +1/+1 for critpath, and no specific requirement for non-critpath. > Let me give you a specific example: I maintain quite a few leaf > packages. The packages have an automated test suite. I test the code > changes as applied the main branch. I test the final update RPMs > rebuilt locally my system. > > Given all this testing, I'm not going to spend time testing the > particular builds on all supported distributions - the overhead would > often take more time than all of the testing above, and it is much less > likely to find any problems. The only really remaining risks are > compiler problems (which are extremely rare) and dependency problems > (which are just as rare for these particular packages). > Mirek It's already been mentioned in this thread that we could probably adjust the policy for packages which have automated test suites. -- 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
