[OM Cooker] We need to get rid of main-testing repo for Lx 3.02 RC and Final release.
Ben Bullard
benbullard79 at cox.net
Thu May 11 17:04:38 EDT 2017
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.
Ben Bullard
ben79
--------------------
OpenMandriva-QA Team
On 05/11/2017 07:14 AM, rugyada wrote:
> 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 <benbullard79 at cox.net>:
>> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://ml.openmandriva.org/pipermail/om-cooker_ml.openmandriva.org/attachments/20170511/77bd8304/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the OM-Cooker
mailing list