On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 09:33:02 -0800, Adam wrote:
> No, not in a clear way. Instead, you keep emphasising that no
negative
> feedback is not equal to a package not having been tested at all. That's
> just plain useless. Not even all broken deps are reported in bodhi.
Why do you keep talking about 'all', as if the condition for success is
catching 'all' errors?
That is your claim.
In my comments it isn't universal quantification, but existential
quantification (∃). There is an update, which is still without feedback
after two weeks, and I cannot conclude anything about how much testing it
may have seen. That's very different from your "[...] most packages that
go to updates-testing for a few days *are* being tested, even if they get
no apparent Bodhi feedback. [...]"
No testing process catches all errors, people
aren't perfect. By your criteria, all testing is useless.
Not all. Twisting words isn't helpful. Trying to discuss with you is a
lost cause, unfortunately. It is my strong impression that you know
nothing about my point of view with regard to updates-testing. Perhaps
you're chasing ghosts or something. And in these huge threads it is too
late (and a waste of time) to even try to explain to individuals what
I think about updates-testing.