Rahul Sundaram wrote:
John Summerfield wrote:
> Richard mentioned a specific example where the package didn't seem to
> have had even a rudimentary test, and I thought you were defending the
Then you thought wrong. I was explaining the general scenario. Not a
"Shouldn't the "maintainers" be testing it themselves as well?
The problems I saw were so obvious they should never gotten out the door. "
specific instance. The specific instance doesn't fail any
test anyway IMO. It installs, removes and updates packages just fine.
Sure, there are UI bugs and I have been filing them one by one.
Remember, we are talking about rawhide, the development version of Fedora.
Rawhide users are still users. Sure they ought have lower expectations
of the reliability of the software, but still it needs some testing
before it hits the mirrors.
>> Of course there are many. One example would be
> That's _after_ it's released to users. Richard's example was one that
> should not have gone that far.
Packages in the development, updates-testing repository can be tested
and feedback provided which determines whether it goes released or not
to general users.
_I_ didn't say "general users." Rawhide users are still users.
The earlier a problem is found, the less expensive (in whatever measure
you choose) it is.
Fixing a problem found by the maintainer probably takes minutes of
one person's time.
Once it hits the mirrors, it's costing a lot of (volunteers) time and
money, and if (as Richard suggested) it basically doesn't work then
it really should not get that far.
 There may be developers before and testers after, I'm trying to keep
it really simple.
 The mirror operators are sinking real money into this, and I don't
think they're all getting a return.
You cannot reply off-list:-)