On Thu, 2012-02-16 at 09:15 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Thu, 2012-02-16 at 08:46 -0500, Vincent L. wrote: > > Thanks for the stats and information. > > > > How big is the gap in testing. > > > > Is there a significant amount of package releases etc walked back > > because after they passed minimum time in QA and were published it > > turned out they were broken ? Ie. percent wise or some other metric > > or in the absence of that a gut assessment. > > No, we almost never revert updates. I can't recall a single instance of > it happening recently. When an update breaks something the packager > usually simply ships a quick fix as a subsequent update. To clarify - it's quite often the case that an update is discovered to be broken *in updates-testing*, but it's quite rare for a badly broken update to make it past updates-testing (it does happen occasionally), and in that case we almost never revert it, we instead fix it with a new update. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora http://www.happyassassin.net -- test mailing list test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
