On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 7:47 PM, Siddhesh Poyarekar <s...@reserved-bit.com> wrote:
> ... which is not enough. The definition of 'generally functional' is > vague, as all of us agree and we have seen examples of that being > misused in the past. Requiring devel to document their packages is > one step forward and requiring testers to provide more detailed > feedback on what they tested (so that devel can decide if that is > sufficient) should be the step after that. > Instead of concentrating on testers, what about the packagers who don't even test their applications before throwing them over the wall to bodhi. I've seen packages that didn't even get past a simple dnf requisite test because the requires statement in the spec file was screwed up. Now we have packagers blaming bodhi because they can't read the instructions, or assuming that a tester hasn't adequately tested a package because it was just released by bodhi (ignoring the fact that a tester could have gotten that same package days ago from koji). As others have already pointed out bodhi was never intended to be a robust testing system. It was intended to give the packager a high level indication of whether or not there are issues. There is nothing wrong with "generally functional". At least you're getting some feedback. If you're concerned about the quality of the testing, then simply raise the karma limit, or turn off the auto push. If you start putting up barriers to people providing feedback you'll soon find you have none. Which would you rather have, an idea that many people have installed your package and haven't noticed any issues or a nice complicated test plan that no one bothers to run and you are left with no feedback. If anything, if there is a test script, that script should be run by the packager BEFORE they send their application to bodhi. That would be more helpful.
-- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
