On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 14:38 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> which go through updates-testing. They do not file positive
> feedback for every single package because there's just too many, but if
> they notice breakage, they file negative feedback.
And they simply don't and can't notice all bugs and regressions. Audacious
2.1 in F12 development apparently hasn't seen real testing before F12 was
released. Since then, bug reports have been flowing in. Same with
Audacious 2.2 that became sort of a mandatory upgrade, so I could reduce
the patch count. Only after it had been released as stable update, the bug
reporting started again.
Too few users have updates-testing enabled. Too few bug reporters are
brave enough to enable updates-testing for a bug-fix referred to in
Thank you for the very selective quoting, wherein you carefully cut out
all the bits where I explicitly acknowledged that the system does not
catch all problems, and painstaking explained that this is not what we
expect it to do, nor was anyone assuming that it did when the proposal
to require packages go through updates-testing was made. That's a great
way to have a productive discussion.
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org