> If you take the enhancement mentioned in the mail , i dont have
any
> clue on how to proceed and that makes it difficult. Probably a note
> atleast on what to be tested could obviously make a difference and
> that atlteast should be mandatory i feel.
Ok but for some packages some testers have responded saying "It works
for me " some people have told it does not work me " . If you look at
these 2 statements, its contradicting, thats point one and the next
one is "It" is still undefined for other testers :). My suggestion is
why cannot we define "It" as a test case or an enhancement atleast. I
sincerely feel that it would make a big difference.
Probably we could review our updates system and try adding a field
which gives more info.I also strongly feel that it would help our
contributors in a real positive way.
Cheers,
Balaji
On 5/29/08, Till Maas <opensource(a)till.name> wrote:
> On Thu May 29 2008, "G" wrote:
>
> If you take the enhancement mentioned in the mail , i dont have
any
> clue on how to proceed and that makes it difficult. Probably a note
> atleast on what to be tested could obviously make a difference and
> that atlteast should be mandatory i feel.
>
>
> Often it will be enough just to use the application a little to provide
> feedback, e.g. as long as the application does not crash or corrupt some
> data, then the update is good enough most of the times imho.
>
> Regards,
>
> Till
>
> --
> fedora-devel-list mailing list
> fedora-devel-list(a)redhat.com
>
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
>
>