Update testing policy: how to use Bodhi

[Till Maas]

On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 11:37:33AM +0200, Mathieu Bridon wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 01:21, Adam Williamson <awilliam at redhat.com> wrote:
> > On Sat, 2010-03-27 at 16:33 +0100, Till Maas wrote:
> >> 8. The package updated sucessfully, but was not used intentionally. No
> >> breakage noticed.
> >>
> >> This shows, that at least on the test machine, there are no broken deps,
> >> conflicts or broken scriptlets.
> >
> > In my head I sort of had this wrapped up with 'no regressions', but you
> > might be right that it's best to split it out as a choice.
> 
> I'm not convinced by the value of this one. IMHO, testing is supposed
> to be a conscious action. You don't test "unintentionally", and if you
> installed an update unintentionally, it means (to me) that you didn't
> test it. I guess it's related to the issue of "do we want to only
> provide updates that add value or do we want to push any updates that
> don't break anything"?

IMHO the question what updates to provide is not related to this. Even
if an update is there to fix something, it does not mean that one can or
will test it completely (special hardware might be required). In this
case it is still interesting to know, whether it installs cleanly or
not. And testing whether it updates cleanly can still be done
intentionally, even when the package is not used. Just taking a look at
the output of "yum --enablerepo=*-testing update" is enough for this.

Also there are packages like libraries, that will probably never be
intentionally manually tested, because it is not that obvious when a
library is used by another program and which code paths are used.

Regards
Till
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20100331/3cd8f992/attachment.bin