Testing test releases: do not update

[Jef Spaleta]

Robert P. J. Day wrote:

> what i was suggesting is that testers have the *choice* as to 
> whether they want to update against rawhide.  if you're feeling 
> gung-ho and ready to rock and want to take the stuff in rawhide 
> for a spin, then by all means, go wild.

I really don't think its appropriate for tester to demand what the
testing release process should look like.  The important thing here..
is making sure the testing process works well for the developers, and
doesn't cause a resource drain contrary to the effort to prepare the
next official release. Preparing a separate testing updates tree, would
be a resource drain and quite possibly takes away value from the
feedback testers are providing.  Testers should not be demanding
anything from the test releases. If anything, Fedora leadership, needs
to find the time, to better communicate, testing guidelines and task
specific mini-events to organize the willing testers volunteers. 

> but for those who aren't quite so devil-may-care, i still don't 
> think it's  out of line to give *those* folks a more stable update 
> channel which represents just those things that are clearly 
> broken.  how many times do i  have to type that sentiment before 
> people understand it?  should i type more slowly?  what?

I think you have some perspective and priorities out of alignment.
If people aren't quite devel-may-care....they shouldn't be running the
test releases....at all. Don't even pretend that isn't the law.
TEST RELEASES EAT BABIES.  And really who's in a position to say with
CLARITY about which packages are worth updating and testing?
Certainly not me, as a tester. Certainly not the bulk of the testers. It
HAS to be the developers call as to what is worth updating in the
development tree as things get ready for the final fedora core 2
release. Second guessing the developers intentions during a testing
phase is rather unproductive and isn't going to push things forward
aggressively.

Pretending like the testing releases should 'just work' or the updates
should 'just work' is naive. You can't have your cake and eat it to.  If
Fedora's development is supposed to be more aggressive than rhl, from
release to release. Burning developer cycles to ensure that test
releases and updates taste good, is going to be a drain on the effort to
get things ready the actually releases. 
2 steps forward, 1 step back, doin' the testing cha-cha...
sometimes that 1 step back is more of a lunge than a step.

> these are the people who are making a fair 
> sacrifice taking that kind of chance and putting up 
> with the inevitable bugs and reporting them.  and in return, 
> what do they get? 

> i submit, what they get is being treated like crap by red hat.

Now I'm sure we can argue for months about how and when Red Hat has
treated people badly, but it seems rather bizarre to me that giving
testers MORE packages to test and report back on is treating testers
badly. I could spin it another way..and say that Red Hat values the
feedback so highly, that they are streamlining the process so that the
feedback from testers can get to the developers as quickly as possible
so it can be acted on.  And if I do spin it that way I would say, it
would benefit Red Hat a great deal to find a way to recognize testers
somehow who have made a noteworthy contribution via their prolonged
suffering during the testing phase. But I don't think it does anyone any
good to cater to testers who want more stability during testing.   

> if i'm prepared to install and live with an alpha release and its 
> initial bugs, the one consolation i might get is that, as time goes by
> and bugs are reported and patches and updates issues, i can at least >
look forward to my system getting more and more stable, having to deal >
with fewer and fewer bugs (at least until the next test release).  i >
can live with the initial pain because i can look forward to life, 
> slowly but surely, getting better and better.  and as things get 
> better, i might even start re-customizing my working environment, 
> getting back to where it was before, life mercifully returning to 
> something resembling normal.

You're expectations are just plain wrong. This is NOT a linear process.
If I were pressed, I would argue that the number of uniquely reported
unresolved bugs probably crests during the second test release for a
number of reasons.  But you certaintly shouldn't expect the test
releases to be a smooth transition from broken to fixed.  In fact I
would argue, unless the developers can find the time( I certaintly can't
seem to find time to even get coffee in the past 5 days) to communicate
specific testing priorities internal to the test release, we as
testers...shouldn't expect ANYTHING beyond a box full of sharp broken
glass. 


-jef"this has been the longest wednesday ever"spaleta