Re: why allow broken packages to get all the way to mirrors?
On Sun, Apr 03, 2005 at 02:26:34PM +0200, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
> On Sun, April 3, 2005 05:39, John Hasler said:
> >> For instance, let's say we are a food company. Why not check to see if
> >> the food is rotten before it gets to the consumer?
> > That's what Unstable is for.
> Why, if tests can be automated, do we have a need to go through the
> process of spreading a package to mirrors, have people install it and file
> bug reports by hand? (Often these reports are a day later already
> out-of-date because it was just a matter of time.) Isn't one of our
> strenghts that we can automate what we can so we can use our time for all
> those tasks that are left?
Where do fully automated bug preventing techniques really work in
All places I know either require a serious amount of work to keep it
running or require people regularily checking the reports (which is
often not done).
And note that "not installable packages" are only a small and not the
worst class of bugs - and they are usually reported pretty fast.
"unstable" is unstable and every user of unstable is expected to know
what to do when the installation of a package fails.
E.g. DSA-177-1 describes a _real_ problem - and this wouldn't have been
> Thijs Kinkhorst
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed