Any place to get FC4T2 a little early?

Chuck R. Anderson cra at WPI.EDU
Mon Apr 11 22:21:55 UTC 2005


On Mon, Apr 11, 2005 at 02:39:37PM -0400, Mike A. Harris wrote:
> So blowing an official beta test release due to some nasty bug
> that affects a large body of testers, IMHO very much does cause
> us to lose a *lot* of real world testing.  Plus, since more people
> install official test releases, if they get burned badly by one of
> our test releases, it theoretically might increase the likelyhood
> that they'll be less quick to test the next test release in case
> it is bad too.

I see no way to fix this.  Either the users will test rawhide before
the official test release is cut, or they won't.  If they don't, how
can we expect the official test release to be free of issues?

> Finally...  If the test coverage we got from people who track rawhide
> and/or do rawhide ISO installs was large enough test coverage for
> the installer and related environment - we wouldn't likely bother
> making "test" releases, because we'd get the test coverage we want
> anyway.

I always try to do some rawhide installs as we are approaching an
official test release to hopefully find "nasty" bugs in the installer
before the official test release.  However, it isn't realistic for a
few people to be able to provide the kind of hardware coverage to be 
able to comprehensively verify that the official test release isn't 
going to have "nasty" problems in the installer.

I suppose we can provide installer update disks to fix "nasty" bugs
after an official test release is out, but by then you've already
burned your test user base.

It is all perception I guess.  With the update mechanism in place, a
test user that updates regularly is really running rawhide anyway. 
I've just been trying to point out to some of these testers that all
is not lost if a test release fails to install--just try the rawhide
install.




More information about the fedora-test-list mailing list