[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Don't put new packages through updates-testing



Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Hans de Goede wrote:

I'm very much against this, as it adds one more step to already long
process of getting new packages in, the current wiki page describing the process divides it into 14 steps and it is lacking the add to comps step (and in my case the update SIG wiki pag, twice once to add it to the list
of packages undergoing review, once more to remove).


Please respond to this very imporant point!

Adding that step in the wiki can be done by anyone and addition to help improve quality are a good thing.


You know very well that I was not talking about the adding to the wiki, but about the to large number of steps needed to get a package in.

1) There will be no wide audience, even if they have updates-testing enabled they will not automatically install the new packages let alone use it,

If the package has a small audience then surely it can wait for a limited timeout in updates-testing


I'm not saying it has a small audience (it might) I'm saying that the cross-section of potential users and those with updates-testing enabled is most likely small.

And for some reason nobody is responding to my point that when in updates-testing a package cannot be in comps and thus is invisible to those using the tools we advice them to use!

Repeating myself, then first get such a QA time organized up and running and then, and only then, make updates-testing mandatory, if I get usefull feedback from this, you've won me over.

If QA can be bypassed then that reduces the incentive to form the team in the first place.

I'm not saying QA should be bypassed, I'm saying that delaying packages for a week to allow testing by a non existent team is silly.


Not true many reviewers review on the latest stable, it says nowhere that a review should be done on rawhide.

Review is about guidelines and nowhere in the guideline does it even say that the fucntionality of the package should be tested. When I suggested that it be added I got back a knee jerk reaction to participate in reviews myself.


Maybe that reaction was solicited because it seems that those making the rules seem to be disconnected from those doing the work? A typical case of manager syndrome.

All I'm asking for is to leaving this to the packagers discretion, isn't Fedora supposed to be all about freedom? Then why put me in a straight jacket.

It is not all about freedom though. There are several other factors that influence a decision.


Factors such as? I thought freedom was the great good which we are all working for.

Regards,

Hans


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]