On Friday 26 February 2010 14:32:16 Marcela Maslanova wrote:
----- "Josh Boyer" <jwboyer(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 08:14:13AM -0500, Marcela Maslanova wrote:
> >----- "Matthias Clasen" <mclasen(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 13:16 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> >>
> >> I think banning stable pushes is the right idea. None of your
>
> reasons
>
> >> is
> >> very convincing.
> >
> >My packages are rarely tested and I forget them in testing phase for
>
> a
>
> >long time. Also fixing BR don't need testing. I simply need push
> >immediately the new/fixed package.
>
> If nobody is testing your packages sitting in updates-testing, then
> maybe the
> users of that package aren't hitting whatever you're fixing or aren't
> otherwise
> having other issues. What is the benefit of pushing an update if
> nobody cares?
They don't care about bodhi and probably they don't know about it.
Good point - it's useless to have package sitting in updates-testing if there
are no users to test it because they usually don't know that we have Bodhi.
Maybe some package rating included in PackageKit would be nice - for stable
packages it's indicator that this package is worth to install, for testing
package it would mean it's working (but again - who's going to rate it in
pkgkit once installed).
I think it's still worth to go through updates-testing with exceptions (eg 95%
testing). And yes - lot of issues could be solved with auto QA.
At least I try to test packages in updates-testing on my other systems
(running different Fedora versions). And thanks to scripts finding my f*kups
like broken deps.
Jaroslav
--
Jaroslav Řezník <jreznik(a)redhat.com>
Software Engineer - Base Operating Systems Brno
Office: +420 532 294 275
Mobile: +420 731 455 332
Red Hat, Inc.
http://cz.redhat.com/