On 2016-07-04 07:19, Florian Pritz via arch-dev-public wrote: > On 04.07.2016 06:37, Bartłomiej Piotrowski wrote: >> I don't see how it makes signoffs useless. Instead of "works for me", I >> got "something is broken" message either via bug tracker or IRC/e-mail. >> The result is the same – the package is fixed or pulled out from testing. > > Sure, we don't need signoffs for that. Signoff are intended to show the > maintainer that people have tested their package and that it worked for > them. Without a signoff all you can do is wait and if you don't hear > anything that can either mean that there are no problems or that nobody > had enough time to test the package yet. Signoffs thus provide the > explicit positive feedback that you can't get any other way. > > I think explicit positive feedback is much better than implicit > timeouts. I really wouldn't know how much time people need to test stuff > and even if you ask them, they might just be busy, on vacation or just > sick. Also as you can see, apparently the current testers (devs/TUs) > don't do as much testing as they used to, but how would you know that if > there were no signoffs to begin with? > > Florian >
Sure, I'm not trying to discredit the idea, I am always for bringing more people into Arch. Explicit feedback that something works is indeed better than silence. My point is, my packages rarely receive any signoffs, so I need to do smoke tests with some common scenarios anyway. If there is interest and archweb allows us for tester role, let's do it. Bartłomiej
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
