Bodhi 0.7.5 release
wwoods at redhat.com
Wed Jun 30 19:08:25 UTC 2010
On Wed, 2010-06-30 at 15:04 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Adam Williamson <awilliam at redhat.com> writes:
> > On Wed, 2010-06-30 at 11:35 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> The proposed policy might be workable if we had a surplus of
> >> proventester manpower available, but we obviously have not got that.
> > See above, you cannot judge this on current experience.
> Yes I can. I have two critpath packages that are in testing with
> security bugs, both pretty small and easy to test, and both still have
> karma zero. That seems to me to be adequate proof that there's not the
> manpower out there to do this.
Have you actually asked anyone to test it? Or even considered
*mentioning the names of the packages* so maybe someone here could help?
You're putting way more effort into complaining about testing being
required than it would actually take to get someone to perform the
required testing. I find this to be a poor use of your time and mine.
> The right way to go about this is to ramp up proventester manpower
> *first* before making it a required gating factor.
Chicken-and-egg problem. It turns out nobody does testing when it's
optional. So now it's not optional.
But take heart - if both packages are small and easy to test, surely
it'll be really easy to find someone to test them both.
More information about the devel