crazy thought about how to ease QA testing

[Jim Popovitch]

Pekka Savola wrote:
> Jim Popovitch wrote:
>> I have to agree with Jesse, there is no way automated testing will 
>> work.  There are just too many differing issues from patch to patch.
> 
> Jim, you're probably missing the fact that VERIFY QA doesn't include the 
> steps "test if the patch worked; test if the vulnerability is fixed".  
> While some folks do perform more rigorous testing, it's not required, 
> and for a good reason.

Pekka, ;-) You are probably missing the fact that I rigorously test the 
patches that affect the platform and rpms that I use (which may be less 
than what others use).

> Which one is better, not shipping any updates at all (or after months 
> and months of delays), or shipping "looks good" updates quickly and 
> fixing them (if issues come up) even faster?

I wholeheartedly agree with your "release in 2 weeks, even if not 
tested" stance, as this *does* get the fix into the hands of people in a 
timely fashion.  I also think that the critical fixes 
(ssh/kernel/httpd/etc) get plenty of attention and testing before 
release.  X11, Mozilla, Fonts, etc., can all fail after upgrade and 
everyone still be safe, IMHO.

> Aiming for perfection doesn't cut it.  

Exactly!  Microsoft taught us that.  ;-)

> Contrary to common beliefs, FL 
> doesn't have the resources for thorough testing that some vendors have 
> the luxury of.  That's why we employ those vendors' fixes directly :-)
>