KDE 3.5

[Eric Tanguy]

I would like to know why this version was pushed directly in FC-4 and
not in update-testing before. This would avoid the problem with k3b!!
Now we have to wait a k3b update to make it run. 
Thanks
Eric

[Thomas M Steenholdt]

Eric Tanguy wrote:
> I would like to know why this version was pushed directly in FC-4 and
> not in update-testing before. This would avoid the problem with k3b!!
> Now we have to wait a k3b update to make it run. 
> Thanks
> Eric

Anybody feel free to kick in and correct me if i'm wrong here, but...

I believe it's been mentioned on this list somewhere before, that 
updates-testing is probably not getting the attention (it should?) from 
a wide variety of testers. My feeling is that updates-testing is 
*mostly* being used by people who have a bugzilla for productX and needs 
to test if their bug has gone away and stuff like this.
This may or may not be intentional (or even true), but that's what I 
seem to recall from previous discussions.

If it had been in updates-testing, would you have taken the time to 
seriously and thoroughly testing it?

If yes, then it's too bad it didn't go to updates-testing, if not it 
wouldn't have helped much. With a limited number of people using 
updates-testing, some weird bug was probably going to make it through 
anyway.

Anyway, hope this helps in some way.

/Thomas

[Arthur Pemberton]

Hey, i would LOVE to install and test, but I just don't have an extra/spare
machine that I can chance such stuff on.

On 12/22/05, Thomas M Steenholdt  wrote:
> Eric Tanguy wrote:
> > I would like to know why this version was pushed directly in FC-4 and
> > not in update-testing before. This would avoid the problem with k3b!!
> > Now we have to wait a k3b update to make it run.
> > Thanks
> > Eric
>
> Anybody feel free to kick in and correct me if i'm wrong here, but...
>
> I believe it's been mentioned on this list somewhere before, that
> updates-testing is probably not getting the attention (it should?) from
> a wide variety of testers. My feeling is that updates-testing is
> *mostly* being used by people who have a bugzilla for productX and needs
> to test if their bug has gone away and stuff like this.
> This may or may not be intentional (or even true), but that's what I
> seem to recall from previous discussions.
>
> If it had been in updates-testing, would you have taken the time to
> seriously and thoroughly testing it?
>
> If yes, then it's too bad it didn't go to updates-testing, if not it
> wouldn't have helped much. With a limited number of people using
> updates-testing, some weird bug was probably going to make it through
> anyway.
>
> Anyway, hope this helps in some way.
>
> /Thomas
>
> --
> fedora-devel-list mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

--
As a boy I jumped through Windows, as a man I play with Penguins.

[Dawid Gajownik]

Dnia 12/23/2005 06:45 AM, Użytkownik Thomas M Steenholdt napisał:
> I believe it's been mentioned on this list somewhere before, that 
> updates-testing is probably not getting the attention (it should?) from 
> a wide variety of testers. My feeling is that updates-testing is 
> *mostly* being used by people who have a bugzilla for productX and needs 
> to test if their bug has gone away and stuff like this.

I'm using updates-testing all the time on my box :P
> If it had been in updates-testing, would you have taken the time to 
> seriously and thoroughly testing it?

Some bugs could have been fixed before pushing packages to 
updates-released (for instance #176045).
> If yes, then it's too bad it didn't go to updates-testing, if not it 
> wouldn't have helped much.

KDE 3.5 update made a really BAD impression on users (at least on 
forum.fedora.pl) -- problems with system update, gaim crash, k3b crash 
and so on. Some of them start to believe that Fedora is not stable or 
they stop to update systems :/

Such situations should be avoided in the future because they ruin good 
Fedora's reputation. Loosing users is the worst thing that can happen...

[Rahul Sundaram]

Hi
> Some bugs could have been fixed before pushing packages to 
> updates-released (for instance #176045).

Maybe. If you are trying out updates-testing, in addition to filing bug 
reports you can post your feedback to the fedora-test list for peer 
views. Bugzilla is sort of this direct reporter <-> developer feedback 
which can sometimes go into a blackhole. If you dont get feedback on 
bugzilla, dont hesitate to followup on the fedora-test list as 
appropriate. If you think there are blocker bugs let us know. We asked 
the community to report bugs when they see problems and many of them 
dutifully do so but unfortunately many of them are duplicates, dont 
contain required information, invalid bugs etc. So we need more of the 
community to be on *receiving* end now and those dont have to be 
developers or requires any coding knowledge at all in many cases. We 
dont have much people going through the bugs and triaging them and 
getting back feedback to users. Red Hat is in the process of hiring a 
full time Fedora triager among other things to improve the QA process  
but meanwhile rest of the community could organize and do regular bug 
days and triaging. We started out this effort recently at 
http://fedorproject.org/wiki/BugZappers. Not much traction yet after the 
initial efforts though.
> KDE 3.5 update made a really BAD impression on users (at least on 
> forum.fedora.pl) -- problems with system update, gaim crash, k3b crash 
> and so on. Some of them start to believe that Fedora is not stable or 
> they stop to update systems :/
>
> Such situations should be avoided in the future because they ruin good 
> Fedora's reputation. Loosing users is the worst thing that can happen...

Fully agreed on that but like I said it requires more community 
participation now. No magic bullers there.

[Rahul Sundaram]

Hi
> . We started out this effort recently at 
> http://fedorproject.org/wiki/BugZappers. Not much traction yet after 
> the initial efforts though.

Typo here. That should be http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers. Sorry.

[Jef Spaleta]

On 12/23/05, Thomas M Steenholdt  wrote:
> I believe it's been mentioned on this list somewhere before, that
> updates-testing is probably not getting the attention (it should?) from
> a wide variety of testers. My feeling is that updates-testing is
> *mostly* being used by people who have a bugzilla for productX and needs
> to test if their bug has gone away and stuff like this.
> This may or may not be intentional (or even true), but that's what I
> seem to recall from previous discussions.

I think you are wrong. The yum 2.4.1 to updates-testing definitely got
noticed by several testers, and the bugs in the new caching feature
were caught and fixed before it got pushed to updates-released. People
are using updates-testing and it would have been perfectly suitable to
spin up kde packages in updates-testing.  And i think its absolutely
absurb to make any claim about how the repo is being used. We have no
stats on the usage pattern of updates-testing.. nor do we have ANY
policy with regard to having testers register that they have tested a
certain package. We have an unknown number of people testing an
unknown percentage of the packages. We can't draw any conclusions from
that.
The fact that we don't have metrics on the testing pattern, is not an
excuse to avoid providing the testing packages. Suck it up and provide
the test packages.

If people are really concerned about the amount of testing being done,
then make it a policy that every testing update annoucement has a bug
report referenced in the annoucement and have every tester provided a
"i tested it" comment.

Where updates-testing falls down is when hardware specific
functionality needs testing.
Coverage over a full spectrum of hardware isn't going to happen.
Kernels in updates-testing are never going to get enough hardware
coverage to catch every problem before the kernel moves to
updates-released.  I have run every single updates-testing kernel that
has come over the wire.. and for my hardware and my configuration i've
seldom noticed a problem.  You can not expect updates-testing to get
full hardware coverage, and you certaintly can't expect people to
screw around as much trying different hardware configurations as
compared to someone running rawhide.

But for application layer software and most libraries beneath them...
updates-testing packages can be useful and will get tested. You don't
need comprehensive hardware coverage to catch problems with kde. You
just need users who do everyday user things, in kde.
> If it had been in updates-testing, would you have taken the time to
> seriously and thoroughly testing it?

If the existence of the kde 3.5 testing packages were made known in
the forums and in fedora-list, then I'm pretty sure rabid kde users
would show up and chew on the packages.

-jef