On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 02:03:16PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-11-22 at 21:58 +0000, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
>
> > With the above information what benefits/value will we have by having
> > proven tester over fas tester hitting the panic button
> > ( since no addinal testing is being performed by the proven tester over
> > fas-tester thus it makes no difference if fas-tester or proven tester
> > hits the panic button)
>
> The proposal is to treat a PT hitting the panic button even more
> dramatically than a registered user hitting it, the idea being that PTs
> should be somewhat better informed and hence less likely to trigger it
> falsely, and that we have the mechanism to withdraw PT privileges, so if
> a PT does trigger, say, two false alarms, we can simply make them not a
> PT any more. It's much more of a drastic step to revoke someone's FAS
> account.
I'm a bit concerned about the fact that we seem to put an equality sign
between "proventester" and "knowledgeable user of the package in
question". IOW, how a membership in some group makes one know what is
needed to test a random package? I could argue that if some random FAS
user tests a package, he does it because he actually uses it, whereas a
"proventester" may be doing it just from a sense of obligation ("I
should be testing updates!"). Therefore the normal user's word should
carry more weight...
And no, the existence of "how to test" document does not change the
situation. If a "proventester" needs it to be able to test a package (as
opposed to "use it as a checklist so he does not forget anything
important"), then he is especially not suited to make an authoritative
decision about the state of the package. Because in that case he is just
a "trained monkey" and cannot be distinguished from a randomly picked
FAS user.
D.
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
