Buchan Milne a écrit :
On Wednesday, 11 January 2012 22:10:01 Juan Luis Baptiste wrote:
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 2:10 PM, Michael Scherer<m...@zarb.org> wrote:
Le mercredi 11 janvier 2012 à 11:24 -0500, Juan Luis Baptiste a écrit :
So trusting and having bugs are totally unrelated. And if you doubt that
bugs appear, just see our bugzilla.
We trust upstream ( most of them ), and yet there is bugs.
No, they're not totally unrelated when we don't have the man power to
do through QA on every package, we need to trust on the packager (and
upstream of course) that he did his best to test the new version
without expecting him to have tested all the new features, Or do you
expect that a QA member get a list of all the new features of a
backport and start testing them one by one ? that's what I call
unrealistic in practice.
If you think that all version backports should be tested in the same
way as updates by QA, then all versions upgrades in cauldron should be
tested by QA before pushing them to the BS right ?
No, they should be tested before being put in the stable release. And
that's exactly what we do by freezing and testing before release.
Of course but again, we can't test *all* the new features of *all* the
programs that are going to a new release, we do our best for most of
them. Critical components like installer, kernel, drak* tools, etc
need more testing and that's where (our very small team) QA should
spend their time after a freeze. The rest we have to do our best to
test after each version update of a package.
And this is IMHO why we should not necessarily enforce full QA on backports.
It is ridiculous to enforce more testing on a package in backports, than most
likely was done for it while in cauldron before a release, especially
considering the user has a relatively easy mechanism for reverting to the
working package.
If QA can state definitively that every package in a release is fully tested,
then I might agree.
But, some of the reason to *have* backports is to allow users on stable
releases to test new versions that exist in cauldron.
Regards,
Buchan
+1
If I remember correctly, our early discussions on backports proposed
that most of the responsibility for testing would be by those requesting
the backport in question, and the developer and/or maintainer. So that
QA would give priority to regular updates.
And that backports may have somewhat less testing, although we would try
to give the same level of testing as regular updates.
The requirement to have them first in cauldron was at least partly
related to increasing the quality of backports.
I agree that it is important to enable backports, to help ensure a
higher quality than will likely result with too much use of 3rd-party repos.
Regards
--
André
