On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 3:43 AM, Florian Hubold <doktor5...@arcor.de> wrote: > Well, 2) and 3) are not valid reasons here, because backports should get > a similar amount of QA testing as normal update candidates, and for > the updates policy require a bugreport for validation through QA.
I think this is unrealistic in practice. For updates, QA will be testing one bug fix, with a backport you will have dozens or more new features to test, you can't expect for QA to test all of them to be able to give the OK, more if they even don't use the backported app in a daily basis. Testing of a backport has to be more relaxed and compromise to test some basic stuff like that it installs and starts correctly, maybe the package maintainer can give some hints on what else to test, but the rest we will have to trust in the maintainer's judgement. 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 ? why risk for a bug on a program when updating to a new mga version and not when doing a backport ?, it's exactly the same situation. -- Juancho