Let me disclose a bit of stuff that could help understanding my point of view. * It is true that some other testers also post brief comments such as "no regressions noted during casual use". I also do that occasionally, but I also post neutral feedback as recommended in the guidelines. Mentioning "casual use" could be an important detail, and a difference e.g. from someone else who runs Squid in a corporate intranet. * If there are too many terse "works for me" +1 comments on packages, accountability becomes a problem. If major bugs are found after approval of the package, it becomes all to easy for a "works for me" tester to claim that a bug could not and cannot be reproduced or that the crucial feature has not been tested. Therefore, terse +1 votes should not be the norm, but the exception for testers who have shown familiarity with the same package/software before. More verbose comments to build up trust, and subsequent terse comments depending on how confident a tester is when signing off a package. * Testing requirements aren't very specific yet. For major apps like Claws Mail, for example, it would not be feasible to test every feature. Still, regularly I try to explain a +1 with a few words and, for example, mention that I've used Claws Mail with IMAP or specific plugins that have been fixed. Sometimes it also helps to point out that none of the bug-fixes have been verified, or that none of them had been reproducible before. * I think it isn't asked too much to add a few words on what kind of testing the tester has performed. Example "Audacity": Has arifiauo only installed and started the new upstream release? Or has he sampled and edited a one hour long track, too? Has he used it often or sporadically only? * Or "pptp", which crashed regularly, albeit only once a week, with the bodhi ticket giving details: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-0135 | | bodhi - 2012-01-05 21:04:20 | This update has been pushed to testing | | arifiauo - 2012-01-06 06:05:51 | Works for me Uh? * Another example, the "Perl" base package. Watch the difference: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2011-17271 | | watzkej (proventesters) - 2012-01-04 02:23:13 | 767931 seems to be fixed per running the reproducer script. | I haven't noticed any regressions in my personal use of Perl. | | arifiauo - 2012-01-05 20:43:04 | Works for me What usage patterns has Perl seen here? * "gsm" is mostly a library in ordinary installs and deserves an explanation of how it has been tested: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2011-16629 | | mschwendt (proventesters) - 2011-12-13 11:49:48 | Tested .au to .gsm and .gsm to .au conversion plus playback. | | bodhi - 2011-12-16 22:06:25 | This update has reached 14 days in testing and can be pushed | to stable now if the maintainer wishes | | arifiauo - 2012-01-05 20:47:26 | Works for me Has he performed the same tests or different ones? Is the "Works for me" supposed to say "Package installed, machine still rebooted"? Is that the only goal of the entire testing procedure? There are many more examples within yesterday's flood of +1 votes on a multitude of different software types, not limited to stuff like tor or nfoview. That makes me nervous. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-0272 | | bodhi - 2012-01-10 18:29:09 | This update is currently being pushed to the Fedora 16 testing updates repository. | | arifiauo (proventesters) - 2012-01-11 00:22:59 | Works for me | | bodhi - 2012-01-11 05:59:57 | This update has been pushed to testing :-/ -- test mailing list test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
