On 20/12/16 16:48, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
On Tue, 2016-12-20 at 14:27 +0000, Tom Hughes wrote:
Surely it's more likely that it just delays the discovery of the
botched
update?
I don't think updates-testing should be batched. Testers should of
course still get all test updates ASAP.
I didn't think updates-testing would be, it's just I don't think many
people use it so I'm not sure having things there for longer will
actually help.
The only way it reduces the risk of releasing a botched update is
the
the updates somehow get more testing just by staying in the testing
channel longer.
...and actual QA, from the professionals and volunteers on the QA team,
who are very good at finding bugs pre-release but currently do zero QA
on our updates because it's an unmanageable rolling stream of a
bazillion separate updates. With batched updates, you can test a batch
with the same overall criteria used for releases to see if it's
botched. That's the advantage of batching over simply extending the
amount of time spent in updates-testing.
Well yes obviously if those batched updates get some formal QA then
that's a different matter, but I didn't realise that was proposed.
Tom
--
Tom Hughes (tom@xxxxxxxxxx)
http://compton.nu/
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
