On 20/12/16 16:48, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
On Tue, 2016-12-20 at 14:27 +0000, Tom Hughes wrote:
> Surely it's more likely that it just delays the discovery of the
I don't think updates-testing should be batched. Testers should of
course still get all test updates ASAP.
I didn't think updates-testing would be, it's just I don't think many
people use it so I'm not sure having things there for longer will
> The only way it reduces the risk of releasing a botched update
> the updates somehow get more testing just by staying in the testing
> channel longer.
...and actual QA, from the professionals and volunteers on the QA team,
who are very good at finding bugs pre-release but currently do zero QA
on our updates because it's an unmanageable rolling stream of a
bazillion separate updates. With batched updates, you can test a batch
with the same overall criteria used for releases to see if it's
botched. That's the advantage of batching over simply extending the
amount of time spent in updates-testing.
Well yes obviously if those batched updates get some formal QA then
that's a different matter, but I didn't realise that was proposed.
Tom Hughes (tom(a)compton.nu)