On 10/ 9/13 09:05 AM, Alexander Pyhalov wrote:
Hello.
On 10/09/2013 10:55, Nikola M. wrote:
What do you think?
Nikola M.
I think this doesn't work - just not enough users even in /hipster.
Will someone ever use /hipster-testing?
For example. I've just recompiled hpijs. But I personally don't use
it. How long will it take to find someone to test it? A week or more?
Putting anything in a public repo without some form of testing is not
great practice
There must be someone using it & is subscribed to the list or other
means of communication with the users
Like having user registration procedure upon install and automatic
subscribing to some PR mailing lists might help with that. There are
many benefits of being registered user , like being informed when
packages you use have been changed and to take measure something you
depend on does not break on update. That line of direct communication
have benefits of including more people in the process on many levels.
We that are willing to test things should at least test it however we
can. (In few days top)
But that publisher before 'hipster', could test upgrading and if
packaging is right, all those distribution stuff that have nothing to do
with functionality of the package itself etc.
And at least we could say "we have testing procedure before publishing it"
and quality control exists but needs to be improved".
I've already mentioned - I think about /hipster as about
FreeBSD-current. Usually it works and everyone tries to avoid breaking
it. But sometimes it happens.
I'd prefer the opposite approach - to make /hipster-stable :) But who
and when will update it?
That is also OK, but there is another view - people get used that
Hipster works.
If Hipster is broken for something for some time period (and there is no
fix for it for some time) then it is a bad practice.
I think it is important to have Hipster better and avoid obvious
breaking and obvious catastrophic changes of functionality by mandatory
testing before putting it in hipster.
It is not good just to 'dump changes' to the hipster and hope for the
best. Alt least one more stage is needed before that that is -testing-
with at least one confirmation before putting it in hipster.
And hipster-stable is great idea,
I suppose hipster-testing could have a track on what is actually good to
go there and what is not,
even if it lives in hipster. Hipster-stable could be points from where
people that test things, could test upgrades and could upgrade to,
before going further with hipster update.
So most of people will continue having just hipster installed. But we
would have
hipster-testing before and hipster-stable after, to help testing crew.
After few hipster-stable , That could be good enough to go to
Openindiana /dev (It is actually Openindiana release). All paying road
to Openindiana /stable and Openindiana /updates ,
that would need another queue of testing and upgrading, but that is for
future. (as well as having SFE also synchronized and not broken etc).
Thing is, people will test something that is most of the time usable.
And with extremely low or non-existent record of breakage.
In times with bigger audience (opensolaris/dev) it surely had bugs and
so on, but it was usable and updated all the time, so people could use
it and report bugs.
For OI, that is Hipster now. So testing is needed for usability.
N.M.
_______________________________________________
oi-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/oi-dev
