Refining the update queues/process [Was: Worthless updates]
mschwendt at gmail.com
Fri Mar 5 17:01:38 UTC 2010
On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 08:19:25 -0800, Adam wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 14:38 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > > 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.
> Thank you for the very selective quoting, wherein you carefully cut out
> all the bits where I explicitly acknowledged that the system does not
> catch all problems, and painstaking explained that this is not what we
> expect it to do, nor was anyone assuming that it did when the proposal
> to require packages go through updates-testing was made. That's a great
> way to have a productive discussion.
You can get a full quote:
| as we've explained several times, most packages that go to
| updates-testing for a few days *are* being tested, even if they get no
| apparent Bodhi feedback. Several QA group members run with
| updates-testing enabled and so get all packages (that they have
| installed) 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.
| So - for the third time - a package being in updates-testing for a few
| days and getting no negative feedback is a moderate strength indicator
| that it's not egregiously broken. Not a super-strong indicator, but
| better than a kick in the teeth.
| This is why what winds up getting proposed to FESco is probably going to
| be something along the lines of *either* acquiring a certain level of
| positive feedback *or* sitting in testing for a few days without
| acquiring any negative feedback. So you can either submit your update
| and wait a few days to push it, or submit it and ask a couple of people
| to test it and post positive feedback, and then you'll be able to push
| it immediately.
It doesn't change anything, though. No feedback => nothing to rely on.
These recent discussions on this list could have been fruitful, btw.
For some people it has become a game of "I'm right - you aren't",
More information about the devel