| 1 |
hasufell: |
| 2 |
> I'll give it to this list outright. |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> I have problems believing in QA competence when I read comments like these: |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=473#c14 |
| 7 |
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=473#c17 |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
blocked or not, I just post them here, because there is nothing to hide: |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
============== |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Comment 14 Chris Reffett |
| 18 |
Depends on whether you consider build failures and stuff like that to be |
| 19 |
QA's problem. Further depends on getting hardware--I for one don't |
| 20 |
exactly have boxes lying around which have nothing better to do than |
| 21 |
build packages all day. We can discuss this at the next meeting, but I |
| 22 |
wouldn't suggest getting your hopes up. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
============== |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Comment 15 Julian Ospald (hasufell) |
| 27 |
(In reply to Chris Reffett from comment #14) |
| 28 |
I am not really sure if I understand that reasoning. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Testing is the very center of Quality Assurance (that's what I |
| 31 |
learned... correct me if I am wrong). Gentoo as a distribution ships the |
| 32 |
portage tree. If no one tests the tree on a global basis (arch testers |
| 33 |
don't), then there is not much QA overall. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
The quality of our tree inherently depends on the compileability of it's |
| 36 |
packages. Further, there are a lot of use cases where a developer might |
| 37 |
want/need to request a tinderbox run with a certain package unmasked, a |
| 38 |
certain eclass changed etc. |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
In the end, it directly affects the user. |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
============== |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
Comment 16 Rick Farina (Zero_Chaos) |
| 46 |
I have a tinderbox class system. I build 4400 packages a day, give or |
| 47 |
take. Problem is, it's the same 4400 packages, and bug reports are |
| 48 |
entirely non-automated. If you would like to help setup something |
| 49 |
better, here I am. |
| 50 |
|
| 51 |
============== |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
|
| 54 |
Comment 17 Tom Wijsman |
| 55 |
(In reply to Rick Farina (Zero_Chaos) from comment #16) |
| 56 |
> I have a tinderbox class system. I build 4400 packages a day, give or |
| 57 |
take. |
| 58 |
> Problem is, it's the same 4400 packages, and bug reports are entirely |
| 59 |
> non-automated. If you would like to help setup something better, here |
| 60 |
I am. |
| 61 |
|
| 62 |
We should fix bugs first before adding more of them; reviving Tinderbox |
| 63 |
would be nice for when we run out of bugs, but that's definitely not the |
| 64 |
case yet today. |
| 65 |
|
| 66 |
Consider to mark this RESOLVED LATER again... |
| 67 |
|
| 68 |
============== |
| 69 |
|
| 70 |
|
| 71 |
Comment 18 Julian Ospald (hasufell) |
| 72 |
(In reply to Tom Wijsman (TomWij) from comment #17) |
| 73 |
> (In reply to Rick Farina (Zero_Chaos) from comment #16) |
| 74 |
>> I have a tinderbox class system. I build 4400 packages a day, give |
| 75 |
or take. |
| 76 |
>> Problem is, it's the same 4400 packages, and bug reports are entirely |
| 77 |
>> non-automated. If you would like to help setup something better, |
| 78 |
here I am. |
| 79 |
> |
| 80 |
> We should fix bugs first before adding more of them; reviving Tinderbox |
| 81 |
> would be nice for when we run out of bugs, but that's definitely not the |
| 82 |
> case yet today. |
| 83 |
> |
| 84 |
> Consider to mark this RESOLVED LATER again... |
| 85 |
|
| 86 |
lolwat? |
| 87 |
|
| 88 |
============== |
| 89 |
|
| 90 |
|
| 91 |
Comment 19 Alexander Berntsen (bernalex) |
| 92 |
(In reply to Tom Wijsman (TomWij) from comment #17) |
| 93 |
> We should fix bugs first before adding more of them; reviving Tinderbox |
| 94 |
> would be nice for when we run out of bugs, but that's definitely not the |
| 95 |
> case yet today. |
| 96 |
|
| 97 |
Should we replace enter_bug.cgi with a website saying "sorry, we have |
| 98 |
enough bugs for now" as well? |
Archives