On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 01:13:18PM +0200, Björn Persson wrote:
> Till Maas wrote:
> > Even
> > if an update is there to fix something, it does not mean that one can or
> > will test it completely (special hardware might be required). In this
> > case it is still interesting to know, whether it inst
Till Maas wrote:
> Even
> if an update is there to fix something, it does not mean that one can or
> will test it completely (special hardware might be required). In this
> case it is still interesting to know, whether it installs cleanly or
> not. And testing whether it updates cleanly can still b
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 11:37:33AM +0200, Mathieu Bridon wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 01:21, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Sat, 2010-03-27 at 16:33 +0100, Till Maas wrote:
> >> 8. The package updated sucessfully, but was not used intentionally. No
> >> breakage noticed.
> >>
> >> This shows, t
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 01:21, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-03-27 at 16:33 +0100, Till Maas wrote:
>> 8. The package updated sucessfully, but was not used intentionally. No
>> breakage noticed.
>>
>> This shows, that at least on the test machine, there are no broken deps,
>> conflicts or
On Sat, 2010-03-27 at 16:33 +0100, Till Maas wrote:
> I have some additions:
>
> 7. fixes bug X, but does not claim to fix it
>
> This can often happen with hardware related bugs, e.g. with the kernel
> where something starts to work again
Oh, yes, I like that. Then the update text could be upd
Till Maas wrote:
> Also it would be nice to provide hardware testing feedback, e.g. for Xorg
> updates to say "Works with nouveau, Geforce XY, using VGA out and XV",
> which then shows that e.g. 3D support, DVI out or multi screen support
> was not tested.
That sounds like a social problem, or at
On 27/03/10 15:08, Matthias Clasen wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-03-27 at 08:19 +, Terry Barnaby wrote:
>
>>
>> I'm not sure if your usage policy covers changes to Bodhi, but how about
>> the system emailing the upstream developers (direct and/or email lists)
>> when a release is made available for tes
On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 03:49:28PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> 1. I have tried this update in my regular day-to-day use and seen no
> regressions.
>
> 2. I have tried this update in my regular day-to-day use and seen a
> regression: bug #XX.
>
> 3. (Where the update claims to fix bug #XX
On Sat, 2010-03-27 at 08:19 +, Terry Barnaby wrote:
>
> I'm not sure if your usage policy covers changes to Bodhi, but how about
> the system emailing the upstream developers (direct and/or email lists)
> when a release is made available for testing/release and also on any
> problems found ?
Terry Barnaby writes:
> I'm not sure if your usage policy covers changes to Bodhi, but how about
> the system emailing the upstream developers (direct and/or email lists)
> when a release is made available for testing/release and also on any
> problems found ?
As an upstream developer, I can hard
On Sat, 2010-03-27 at 08:19 +, Terry Barnaby wrote:
> I'm not sure if your usage policy covers changes to Bodhi, but how about
> the system emailing the upstream developers (direct and/or email lists)
> when a release is made available for testing/release and also on any
> problems found ?
Th
On 27/03/10 04:12, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-03-27 at 03:50 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>
>> So I don't think blocking an update outright for having received type 2
>> feedback is sane at all.
>
> Sigh. That was why I said not to sidetrack the discussion because it was
> the least import
On Sat, 2010-03-27 at 03:50 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> So I don't think blocking an update outright for having received type 2
> feedback is sane at all.
Sigh. That was why I said not to sidetrack the discussion because it was
the least important bit of the post. It was just an example of how
On Sat, 2010-03-27 at 00:35 +0100, Mathieu Bridon wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 27, 2010 at 00:31, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Sat, 2010-03-27 at 00:11 +0100, Mathieu Bridon wrote:
> >> This is basically what Doug had proposed, except that you added 5. and 6.
> >
> > Great, glad to hear we're thinking in
On Sat, Mar 27, 2010 at 00:31, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-03-27 at 00:11 +0100, Mathieu Bridon wrote:
>> This is basically what Doug had proposed, except that you added 5. and 6.
>
> Great, glad to hear we're thinking in the same direction from different
> angles :) Do you have a link t
On Sat, 2010-03-27 at 00:11 +0100, Mathieu Bridon wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 23:49, Adam Williamson wrote:
> [... snip ...]
> > 1. I have tried this update in my regular day-to-day use and seen no
> > regressions.
> >
> > 2. I have tried this update in my regular day-to-day use and
Hi,
On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 23:49, Adam Williamson wrote:
[... snip ...]
> 1. I have tried this update in my regular day-to-day use and seen no
> regressions.
>
> 2. I have tried this update in my regular day-to-day use and seen a
> regression: bug #XX.
>
> 3. (Where the update claims to fix
Hi, folks. At the last QA meeting, I volunteered (dumb of me!) to draft
a policy for testing updates - basically, a policy for what kind of
feedback should be posted in Bodhi for candidate updates.
This turns out to be pretty hard. =) Thinking about it from an
high-level perspective like this, I t
18 matches
Mail list logo
