On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 08:19:25 -0800, Adam wrote:
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
> bugzilla.
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.
*sigh*
You can get a full quote:
| as we've explained several times, most packages that go to
| updates-testing for a few days *are* being tested, even if they get no
| apparent Bodhi feedback. Several QA group members run with
| updates-testing enabled and so get all packages (that they have
| installed) 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.
|
| So - for the third time - a package being in updates-testing for a few
| days and getting no negative feedback is a moderate strength indicator
| that it's not egregiously broken. Not a super-strong indicator, but
| better than a kick in the teeth.
|
| This is why what winds up getting proposed to FESco is probably going to
| be something along the lines of *either* acquiring a certain level of
| positive feedback *or* sitting in testing for a few days without
| acquiring any negative feedback. So you can either submit your update
| and wait a few days to push it, or submit it and ask a couple of people
| to test it and post positive feedback, and then you'll be able to push
| it immediately.
It doesn't change anything, though. No feedback => nothing to rely on.
These recent discussions on this list could have been fruitful, btw.
For some people it has become a game of "I'm right - you aren't",
unfortunately.