Re: "testing" improvements
On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 04:14:28PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 03:32:59PM -0500, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > The way I see it, it doesn't matter one bit whether anyone even _looks_ at
> > testing until we start to prepare for a release. Until that time, all of
> > the "testing" happens in unstable, and "testing" is misnamed.
> And around we go again. The "testing" that is meant to be happening on
> testing is user-level testing, not "is this package completely fucked
> over". That means things like:
> * can we install the system?
> * can we upgrade smoothly from previous releases?
> * does the behaviour of the system match the docs?
> Unfortunately, we've regressed into being unable to maintain unstable
> at minimal levels of quality, so the relevance of any of the above is
> somewhat distant.
It sounds like you are agreeing with me. None of these things matter when
unstable is broken, and testing is more or less irrelevant until unstable is
fixed. Folks who are testing 'testing' are finding bugs fixed last year,
and not finding the bugs that are about to show up with the next load of