On Wed, 2016-12-21 at 23:36 +0000, Iiro Laiho wrote: > > You've just offended three people without knowing anything about them. > > No. I am just describing the current QA procedure. The +1 comments > from three people are seen as some kind of proof of stability of the > update, No they aren't. You are fundamentally misunderstanding what Bodhi - and human Bodhi feedback - exists for. I explain this regularly, but I guess I'll do it again. Bodhi, and the whole updates-testing gating system, was developed in response to such howlers as 'we sent out a glibc update which entirely broke the system of everyone who installed it'. The original purpose of Bodhi was *to prevent that kind of thing from happening*. It was never claimed by anyone involved in the process at any point that Bodhi feedback provided 'proof of stability of the update'. What it was intended to provide is a reasonably solid (but not foolproof) indication that the package does not completely break anything. We have since extended Bodhi a bit and added in some capability for indicating feedback beyond 'whether or not it's completely broken'. But there is no feedback type in Bodhi for 'keyboard definition was removed from package', and none of the update feedback guidelines suggests that update testers should dig through the package painstakingly with a fine-toothed comb looking for unexpected changes. This is quite intentional. You're just assuming Bodhi is intended to achieve far more than it really is. I can't find any basis for these assumptions in any of our process or tool documentation; nothing I can find claims that Bodhi feedback is intended to guarantee that a keyboard layout doesn't disappear from Xkb. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
