<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p><font face="Bitstream Vera Sans">I can't grasp the idea that this
is something on which to agree or disagree. It simply is not
workable. I can't conceive of any way to get something like this
past QA. <br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Bitstream Vera Sans"></font><br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Ben Bullard
ben79
--------------------
OpenMandriva-QA Team
</pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 05/11/2017 07:14 AM, rugyada wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAB7dtZEJjrhKSXiB01BkRbVPR=upitn8y9Qwe36dw6zyfuvEYw@mail.gmail.com">
<pre wrap="">Hello,
As by a common user point of view I have to agree with Ben.
Devs say that's a feature not a bug when directly asked. Ok we can
understand it to some extent making their (huge and really
appreciated) work easier.
Just please don't forget to remove testing repo from script before
final release building.
My suggestion would be to move reliable packages from /testing to
/main right before the final build (meaning also the candidate ISO
announced for testing), but I'm sure you know what to do :)
Also, sorry for all the complaints & QA requests (someone would call
them feedbacks :P ), at any rate I'm sure that we all want to release
a good quality OMLx 3.02 system.
It's not a secret that personally I have been disappointed, sad and
very very angry to read some not-so-good 3.01 reviews.
This time I'd like our release to be as much as possible near to
perfect and silly bugs free, and to be proud of it.
My friends, guess it's common wish isn't it?
PS>
What happened with the good old practice to release a Beta/RC/whatever
public release before GA?
Public Beta/whatever do attract users, make us aware of -if any-
latest undiscovered issues, gather feedbacks, and last but not least
make buzz.
Thanks to everybody.
2017-05-11 4:38 GMT+02:00 Ben Bullard <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:benbullard79@cox.net"><benbullard79@cox.net></a>:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Apologies for personal e-mails but OM-whatever e-mails aren't working for me
right now.
An issue I forgot in TC-meeting. This is a big issue as well. So far the Lx
3.02 ISO's have all been made with main-testing repo enabled. So that sorta
means that users/testers need to enable it to update their systems. In fact
there have been times when updating would not work without main-testing or
manual intervention. This won't work with non-tech-savvy users. And we got
'em. We should be wanting more of them shouldn't we?
I see huge problems with a Public release needing any testing repo. In fact
I'm running in to things just testing where I'm inclined and stop till we
get this squared away. For one do I test with or without main-testing
enabled and as I mentioned sometimes you can't update without it.
1. I need main-testing to be gone from the RC ISO for final thorough
testing. I'm running in to many instances of "what am I testing packages in
main-updates or main-testing". Surely we're not expected to test both and if
we did imagine the nightmare of lib and dependency packages. Frankly I'm not
tech-savvy enough myself to do that. And this is exactly why I just stopped
testing something and wrote this e-mail.
2. I damn sure don't want to be the person that has to answer questions on
the forum about "Why bad packages", "Why packages not signed", after this
hits SourceForge and DistroWatch. That's where I go disappear in the swamps
of Louisiana.
--
Ben Bullard
ben79
--------------------
OpenMandriva-QA Team
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>