Testing of updates

[Matt McCutchen]

On Sat, 2010-05-15 at 11:06 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> Same applies to positive karma. Is the +1 the result of substantial
> testing or just a +1 to get the new "adventurous" stuff, which makes
> Fedora less boring?

Yes, a standard for +1 karma would be helpful.  But even before that, we
need a standard (or at least an understanding shared by maintainers) for
how much total testing an update needs before being pushed to stable.

I have been using fedora-easy-karma for a few weeks now, and I typically
give a +1 after successfully performing my most common workflow(s) using
the package.  The fact that the package works at all in my environment
is valuable information, but it's still important to ensure that the
package gets the desired total amount of testing.

On a tangent, one thing that should probably be tested is that each bug
claimed to be fixed is in fact fixed.  That test should be done by
someone who was able to reproduce the bug in the first place, otherwise
it is meaningless.  For an example where an update was pushed without
any attempt at such testing and turned out not to fix the bug, see:

https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rsync-3.0.7-2.fc12

-- 
Matt