On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 04:08:32 -0700, Andrew Farris wrote: > > Conclusively, after a few days already, the tester no longer tests F9 Alpha, > > but a rapidly changing collection of packages. Let's hope this will change > > with the Beta release and the feature freeze. > > I was never really suggesting that 'Alpha' as a snapshot still needed testing. ? > It is a well accepted fact that 'Alpha' is meant as a test of installability > more than anything else and nearly all the packages are obsolete for testing > purposes a week or two later. qed. Together with the cases where the post-Alpha packages get worse, that is a good example of why testing the Alpha doesn't make much sense. Even if a pkg in the Alpha worked fine, the next one may be one of the many infamous version upgrades that spreads wreckage all over the floor. The terminology (test1 -> test2, or alpha -> beta) doesn't matter much, if there is no road from the former release to the latter. The recent F8 kernel update is in the same area. In bodhi it's at karma -6 already, not counting anonymous users. The first tester there gave it +1 although he had to delete/reconfig his network profiles (which probably was the same bug that hit me and killed the network). > F9 Development does however, need the testing, Then make it more tester-friendly. > Just because there is a new build of a package doesn't mean a report against a > prior build is a waste of time either, it just means you have something to check > in the future (whether it is fixed). Exactly that *is* a waste of resources. > You report it, you check later after you > update, if its still there then the developer knows about it early, if its not > still there you close your own bug. ... and open a new one, because the version upgrade (re-)introduces bugs. -- fedora-test-list mailing list fedora-test-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list
