Plan for tomorrow's FESCo meeting (2010-11-17)
opensource at till.name
Sun Nov 21 09:26:15 UTC 2010
On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 08:44:43AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-11-20 at 11:23 +0100, Till Maas wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 10:18:38PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > > place. The idea was never that some magic independent group of testers
> > > would spend the rest of their lives doing nothing but test updates.
> > This idea was never prominently communicated as the default
> > situation. Iirc it was said that there are lots of people who want the
> > update criteria and will test updates. Making package maintainers now
> > start to beg for their updates to be tested is imho just a big waste of
> > time.
> > Also there is no dispensable manpower from package maintainers
> > available, so requiring them to additionally test each other updates
> > manually and to maintain test machines is not a good idea. The whole
> > update criteria enforcement only works if there are enough dedicated
> > testers that provide extra manpower. Or if the testing is all automated.
> I'm looking back through the hideous fesco meeting discussions of this
> stuff and I don't see any suggestion that there would be "lots of people
> who want the update criteria and will test updates". Granted I may be
> missing it, but I can't find it. We set up the proven testers group to
> test *critpath* updates, they're not really expected to be any more
> likely to test non-critpath updates than anyone else; even there, the
> whole point of the proven testers group is to get as many people as
> possible to join, and from outside of QA. The last time we went through
> this I suggested to the KDE SIG that they have their members sign up as
> proventesters so they could test each other's packages, and I know that
> at least some of them did sign up; however, it appears that now they
> don't want to be bothered to do the testing, if what you're saying is
> true for the team.
Afaik the whole change to introduce the update criteria was justified by
many people not content with the previous situation and want to test
updates first. So probably there are more people who where not content
with the previous situation and want other people to test the updates
for them. If this is the case, than please say this clear.
E.g. I did not really have major problems with updates in the time
before the enforcement of update criteria.
> I really don't see how you can say that testing updates is a 'waste of
> time' with a straight face. It *takes* time, yes. It may be boring
I did not write that testing is a waste of time. But begging to get
updates tested is. Also it is imho for each maintainer to maintain lots
of test machines (e.g. there are four Fedora "releases": F12, F13, F14
and Rawhide and two primary archs, making it 8 machines) even if they do
not have the time to perform regular testing, but spend their FOSS time
more on development or packaging. For dedicated testers it is different,
e.g. if they regularly use their testing machines, it makes more sense
to maintain them.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20101121/b57369e3/attachment-0001.bin
More information about the devel