Testing test releases: do not update (was: yum.conf that works)
Jason Knight
tuxpenguin at austin.rr.com
Sun Feb 22 19:48:54 UTC 2004
I couldn't thave said it better myself, I believe this is a simple case
of a little effort now a whole lot less effort later. This would make
much more sense.
Robert P. J. Day wrote:
>and for those who think it's too much work for red hat to do it this way,
>i submit that it's exactly the opposite. when there's a test release out
>in the wild, red hat should be spending their time dealing with bug
>reports that represent things that are just flat out *broken*. not stuff
>from rawhide, not RFEs, not wish lists. they should be focused on fixing
>stuff that's broken, and that means restricting their attention to just
>those things so that the testers' time is well spent. and that means not
>having to deal with rawhide. there should be a *separate* update channel
>purely for fixing broken things. and, no, i don't care if it takes red
>hat a few more minutes to set this up. it's not about *them*, it's about
>making the testers' time as productive as possible. but wait, there's
>more.
>
>
>
This would be excellent as well, maybe this would be taken under the
wing of the documentation project?
>anyway, what would be nice is if there was a real and comprehensive
>document for testers, explaining how releases work, how to query bugs, how
>to report bugs and so on. and by "comprehensive", i mean something a
>little more meaty than "file bugs at bugzilla against your current
>release."
>
>i'm convinced that the testing procedure deserves an update repo, and i'm
>just as convinced that that repo shouldn't be rawhide.
>
>
--
Jason Knight
Fedora Core 1 Test 1 *x86_64*
More information about the test
mailing list