Suggestion with respect to the Fedora Update System

[Till Maas]

On Thu May 29 2008, "G" wrote:

> Ok but for some packages some testers have responded saying "It works
> for me " some people have told it does not work me " . If you look at
> these 2 statements, its contradicting, thats point one and the next
> one is "It" is still undefined for other testers :). My suggestion is
> why cannot we define "It" as a test case or an enhancement atleast. I
> sincerely feel that it would make a big difference.
> Probably we could review our updates system and try adding a field
> which gives more info.I  also strongly feel that it would help our
> contributors in a real positive way.

Imho everytime some package receives bad karma, it needs to be explained what 
did not work, otherwise nobody can fix it. For good karma, imho the testcases 
could be better collected somewhere else than in each update, because they 
will not differ much for each release, e.g. for a yum update one would always 
check whether update/install/remove works.

Regards,
Till
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 827 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20080529/a56f51cb/attachment.bin