submitters +1ing their own packages
awilliam at redhat.com
Thu Sep 8 17:45:01 UTC 2011
On Thu, 2011-09-08 at 13:16 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
> > - A system in good condition (packages verify well, no dupes) that's
> > used normally, i.e. what you would see being used by normal persons
> > without any fancy hacks in configuration, or worse, non-config files
> > owned by packages. Pro: Easy to test as you don't need to do anything
> > fancy, just yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update <pkg>; <use pkg>
> Neither one of those definitions addresses the large variety of
> configurations that are possible with vanilla Fedora packages. E.g.
> your update might work wonderfully running a default Gnome desktop
> install, but crash portions of the KDE or XFCE stack (for cases of
> underlying desktop infrastructure).
> I don't think a maintainer can realistically replace wide-spread user
> based testing in a variety of environments. In light of that, we can
Neither do I, but then, we don't require wide-spread user based testing
in a variety of environments: we require, in the strictest case, exactly
> either accept a maintainer +1 as "I tested this as I would use it and
> it worked" (which should be implied by them submitting the update
> already anyway), or we can disallow it as the policy says.
> I don't think adding more definitions or steps to the existing policy
> is really going to improve anything.
I still think there's a significant difference between "I made the same
change in my private git branch, built it locally, fired it up and it
worked" (or "I made the same change in my private git branch, and it
built"...) and "I installed the package from koji / updates-testing on
my reasonably sane Fedora 16 installation and it worked".
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora
More information about the devel