On Thursday 23 October 2003 03:49 am, Simon Oosthoek wrote: > I'm sure this was meant as sarcasm, but... > > On Thu, Oct 23, 2003 at 05:57:29AM +0200, Han Boetes wrote: > > Nope, you guys are our test subjects. Our labrats. :) > > > > This is the deal. We make packages and you make decent bugreports or you > > learn to live with the fact cooker is broken. > > What's the use of even uploading a package which has not been tested? The > simple assumption that a package is broken until proven otherwise would > already help. Especially if the maintainer of such a package will feel a > need to only upload correct packages that don't break anything. > > If this requires to much work on the maintainer part, why not use a new > "role": Package maintainer is there, but why not Package Tester. Someone > who is interested in a certain package and is willing to be a guinneapig > (sp?) for that package. The maintainer packages a new version, sends it to > the tester who then tests it and checks whether something breaks. If it's > ok, the maintainer uploads it to cooker for the rest of the labrats to have > a go at it! > > It's just a thought ;-) > > Simon I'd be happy if there were simply a "rollback" directory on the mirrors. In other words when a package is updated, yesterday's version rolls over to the rollback directory. Also, the reason I said "yesterday's" is often there are 2-3 quick updates in a row, as little packaging bugs get caught by the packager and quickly fixed - would hate to have two broken packages, the rollback and the new one, on the mirrors.
Vinny
