Plan for tomorrow's FESCo meeting (2010-11-17)

Adam Williamson awilliam at
Sat Nov 20 21:32:22 UTC 2010

On Sat, 2010-11-20 at 22:24 +0100, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> Adam Williamson píše v So 20. 11. 2010 v 13:14 -0800: 
> > On Sat, 2010-11-20 at 20:30 +0100, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> > > If the "something else" is more important than testing the update,
> > > testing the updates truly is a waste of time.
> > 
> > I don't disagree with anything you say, but the question of what's more
> > important than testing an update is key. If an update's worth doing,
> > it's worth testing.
> .. and if it is worth testing, it is worth testing more, right?

Erm, I didn't say that, don't put words into my mouth.

>   Yet one
> has to stop sooner or later.

Sure. That's why FESCo quite heavily toned down the testing requirements
from the initial draft: the initial draft required all updates to have
+3 karma to be pushed, remember. That was considerably reduced to +1/+1
for critpath, and no specific requirement for non-critpath.

> Let me give you a specific example: I maintain quite a few leaf
> packages.  The packages have an automated test suite.  I test the code
> changes as applied the main branch.  I test the final update RPMs
> rebuilt locally my system.
> Given all this testing, I'm not going to spend time testing the
> particular builds on all supported distributions - the overhead would
> often take more time than all of the testing above, and it is much less
> likely to find any problems.  The only really remaining risks are
> compiler problems (which are extremely rare) and dependency problems
> (which are just as rare for these particular packages).
> Mirek

It's already been mentioned in this thread that we could probably adjust
the policy for packages which have automated test suites.
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org

More information about the devel mailing list