Plan for tomorrow's FESCo meeting (2010-11-17)

[Tom Lane]

Adam Williamson <awilliam at redhat.com> writes:
> I don't disagree with anything you say, but the question of what's more
> important than testing an update is key. If an update's worth doing,
> it's worth testing. This is pretty simple, and amply demonstrated by
> Fedora history: if we allow people to push untested packages as official
> updates to stable releases, we will break those stable releases, and
> people who use them will be badly affected.

> If you don't think you can find a single person to test an update you're
> about to make, ask yourself if it's actually worth doing the update.

I don't know about you, but I *do* try to test my packages before I ever
push them.

The relevant question here is not whether package maintainers should
spend time convincing themselves to their own satisfaction that their
updates are OK.  One would hope they already do that.  The question is
whether package maintainers should spend time trying to mobilize testing
efforts above and beyond what they can do themselves.  As a maintainer,
I do not consider that part of my job or my skill set.  I am *not* going
to pester fedora-test-list for testers for every minor update.  Even if
I had the time and inclination to do that, I think if that list gets
swamped by maintainers trying to drum up ad-hoc testing support for
their updates, it'll probably lose its readership altogether.

I don't know what the answer is, but telling maintainers they have to
become test managers in addition to their other responsibilities isn't
likely to improve anything.  It sounds to me like just another iteration
of the same wishful thinking that created this policy to begin with.
Inventing hoops for people to jump through does not result in more
manpower becoming available ... more likely the opposite.

			regards, tom lane