Le mardi 16 décembre 2008 à 23:22 +0100, Julien BLACHE a écrit :
> Also new users have a tendency to go with testing and don't use
> unstable much these days.
>
> The net effect is that there aren't enough people left using unstable
> to uncover enough problems. Hence bugs silently make it to testing.
Maybe that’s because I maintain packages with a large audience, but I
don’t find that effect very important.
More annoying are these effects:
* Bugs that trigger with a specific combination of packages. In
unstable they are fixed very quickly, but even when adding a
Conflict, one of the packages can migrate to testing long before
the others and keep testing in a broken state.
* Testing users don’t check whether a bug is fixed in unstable.
It’s not that bugs silently make it to testing, but they are
fixed much more quickly in unstable. That could be improved with
reportbug being stricter about bugs against testing packages
with newer versions in unstable.
> Being stricter wrt testing migration is hardly going to help. What
> will help is having more people actually use unstable so bugs are
> uncovered before they hit testing.
Actually I don’t think we should recommend testing at all to desktop
users. Except during freeze times, I find unstable to be much more
usable, and keep testing for (non-production) servers.
However it is important to keep a large testing userbase, since
developers don’t (at least, they aren’t supposed to) use it. Some bugs
triggering with some package combinations only appear in testing and
during the etch freeze, some very nasty bugs were detected this way.
(This didn’t happen with lenny since unstable has remained almost the
same as testing.)
Cheers,
--
.''`.
: :' : We are debian.org. Lower your prices, surrender your code.
`. `' We will add your hardware and software distinctiveness to
`- our own. Resistance is futile.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message =?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e?=