On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 4:13 AM, Nils Philippsen <nils@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, 2011-09-08 at 13:16 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: >> I don't think a maintainer can realistically replace wide-spread user >> based testing in a variety of environments. > > I didn't argue that this would be the case, but rather that persons who > are developers/package maintainers can also wear a tester's hat as long > as they can keep these roles separate. > >> In light of that, we can >> either accept a maintainer +1 as "I tested this as I would use it and >> it worked" (which should be implied by them submitting the update > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >> already anyway), or we can disallow it as the policy says. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > No, implicitly assuming that the final package was tested just because a > maintainer submitted it is wrong in my eyes. To me, a maintainer > submitting an update simply means "I've built (a) new package(s) which > should fix these problems, now it/they can be tested." It shouldn't make > a shred of difference if a person testing an update package is a > maintainer or not in this process. I meant that it should be implied that the package maintainer already did some amount of testing on the package before they submitted it as an update. A basic minimum touch test that it doesn't break things, etc. This is entirely outside the updates process and just common sense good practice. josh -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
