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

[Michael Schwendt]

On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 09:33:02 -0800, Adam wrote:

> > No, not in a clear way. Instead, you keep emphasising that no negative
> > feedback is not equal to a package not having been tested at all. That's
> > just plain useless. Not even all broken deps are reported in bodhi.
> 
> Why do you keep talking about 'all', as if the condition for success is
> catching 'all' errors?

That is your claim.

In my comments it isn't universal quantification, but existential
quantification (∃). There is an update, which is still without feedback
after two weeks, and I cannot conclude anything about how much testing it
may have seen. That's very different from your "[...] most packages that
go to updates-testing for a few days *are* being tested, even if they get
no apparent Bodhi feedback. [...]" 

> No testing process catches all errors, people
> aren't perfect. By your criteria, all testing is useless.

Not all. Twisting words isn't helpful. Trying to discuss with you is a
lost cause, unfortunately. It is my strong impression that you know
nothing about my point of view with regard to updates-testing. Perhaps
you're chasing ghosts or something. And in these huge threads it is too
late (and a waste of time) to even try to explain to individuals what
I think about updates-testing.