Proposals for the Updates Testing Procedure

[Karl DeBisschop]

On Thu, 2003-11-13 at 16:35, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 13, 2003 at 04:13:33PM -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> > Warren Togami (warren at togami.com) said: 
> > > I'd say that 1-2 months would be a fair time limit for update testing. 
> > 
> > 1-2 *months*? I'd say weeks, tops.
> 
> Especially for security issues, it should IMHO be days, not weeks.
> It would be good to know how many people actually tested it though,
> if there are problems, they will likely show up in bugzilla, but
> if there are no reports, it is unclear if this is because nobody
> bothered to test or because it works for everybody.
> I don't think WWW/FTP/rsync statistics would be much useful, because
> mirrors will be downloading them and people on the other side could
> download from mirrors, not from d.f.r.c.

I've been trying to get my head around how testing/approval might work
also. I'm not looking forward to the idea that a storm of emails might
come on to the list all saying "it worked for me"

Maybe there could be a link to a bugzilla "yes" vote in the testing
notification. Then, assuming your browser handled the login reasonably
well, you could have a one-click way to approve.

Problems could be reported via the normal means, I suppose. I actually
don't mind seeing real problem reports on the list becuase that blends
into discussing the solution. But I quickly tire of "me too's", and I
can't imagine anyone would want to have count them either.

-- 
Karl DeBisschop <kdebisschop at alert.infoplease.com>
Pearson Education/Information Please