Refining the update queues/process [Was: Worthless updates]

[Michael Schwendt]

On Wed, 03 Mar 2010 14:06:33 -0800, Adam wrote:

> as we've explained several times,

It won't get more correct by simply repeating it over and over again.

> most packages that go to
> updates-testing for a few days *are* being tested, even if they get no
> apparent Bodhi feedback.

Certainly not most packages. Just those "Core"-type of packages whose
features cannot be avoided at run-time, such as essential system programs
that are executed always and on every installation. Or popular apps that
are *really* *really* widely and very actively used with many of their
features.

> Several QA group members run with
> updates-testing enabled and so get all packages (that they have
> installed) 

Which is not equal to "most packages".

> 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.