On Sun, Feb 07, 2021 at 05:19:17PM +0100, Gard Spreemann wrote: > >> > the packages being untouched for a long time in some cases meaning there > >> > is > >> > no guarantee for quality. > >> > >> Sure, but if there is no serious issue left with the package, we can as > >> well ship it. > > Strictly speaking, there is a big logical error here. > > If a package doesn't have RC bugs that doesn't mean it's fit for a > > stable release, doesn't have serious issues, or even is usable. > > Wouldn't it be quite the massive paradigm shift to give up on the notion > of tracking problems (= bugs), and instead try to track positive > attributes like fitness for release, though? Sure, it would, and I'm not proposing it. Better QA would help us with tracking bugs, on the other hand. It's debatable whether or not "better QA" includes more of the manual testing (like "get more users"? "get more users that are able to report bugs"? "do that by improving the reporting experience"? "make sure people that are able to report bugs actually use everything we ship in testing"? "make sure everything we ship in testing was checked manually before migrating"?).
I'm also not sure what is the author of this thread proposing regarding this. -- WBR, wRAR
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
