| 1 |
On 10/3/13 3:30 PM, Kent Fredric wrote: |
| 2 |
> Now, if you were to see "no people have successfully built combination X", |
| 3 |
> that in itself is interesting, even if you don't have actual failure |
| 4 |
> reports of that combination. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> Also, if "5 testers tested this combination and nothing bad happened" is |
| 7 |
> combined with "however, we have 200 similar installation failures reported |
| 8 |
> for this combination", you've got some context for research you need to do |
| 9 |
> to understand why those failures exist ( even if none of them managed to |
| 10 |
> file a bug report ). |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> Essentially, I'm saying we need to lower the thresholds to providing |
| 13 |
> reliable feedback about what is happening with packages in the field, ie: |
| 14 |
> Diego's smoke boxes are very very useful, but thats *one* person. Imagine |
| 15 |
> if we can get 500+ people running similar smoke operations with a |
| 16 |
> manageable feedback system. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Oh totally, I was not dismissing benefits of that. It'd be great. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
There is only one small detail: someone would need to create it. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Then, based on how other stats-related efforts in Gentoo turned out, |
| 23 |
it's not that obvious to me how big the coverage would actually be. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
When I think about using Gentoo in any production environment, I'm |
| 26 |
pretty sure one has to do his own testing and staging. We try to keep |
| 27 |
things reasonably sane in Gentoo stable, but even what you're describing |
| 28 |
above won't cover _everything_, and this is mostly what I'm saying. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Paweł |
Archives