[Mageia-dev] please stop doing "bugs" for updating magia 1

[andre999]

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<misc at 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