Update testing policy: how to use Bodhi

Till Maas opensource at till.name
Wed Mar 31 11:22:44 UTC 2010

On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 01:13:18PM +0200, Björn Persson wrote:
> Till Maas wrote:
> > 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.
> I thought the plan was to have AutoQA verify that packages install cleanly. 
> Isn't it better to automate such simple checks and save human resources for 
> the things that can't be automated? Or do you think even just installing 
> updates is too complex to be tested automatically?

I agree, that automation is the way to do this, but still it might not
catch everything and there is not much effort required to do this
testing (just look at the yum output) and report it. But there are also
updates that might interfer with RPMFusion, like it happened with
gstreamer. Here AutoQA might not be able to test this, because of legal

-------------- 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/aadf6c6e/attachment.bin 

More information about the devel mailing list