Mailinglist Archive: opensuse (1698 mails)

< Previous Next >
Re: [opensuse] Systemd and fstab
  • From: Per Jessen <per@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2011 20:15:45 +0100
  • Message-id: <jcipp1$7gf$2@saturn.local.net>
Andreas Jaeger wrote:

On 12/16/2011 08:44 PM, John Andersen wrote:
On 12/16/2011 11:15 AM, Cristian Rodríguez wrote:
On 16/12/11 16:09, James Knott wrote:

When I was at IBM, this sort of thing would have been part of
integration testing. As I mentioned earlier, when you make a
significant change, you'd better test it fully.

That's a nice thing you can step up to do by yourself. see


http://news.opensuse.org/2011/10/11/opensuse-announces-first-public-release-of-openqa/

We can't test everything, and even less all sorts of scenarios that
having two init systems bring up.


Not testing everything is not the same as not testing the basics.
Postfix is hardly a corner case.


Postfix is installed on nearly every system. The question should
better be: Why was it not reported earlier?

Andreas, the obvious answer to your question is - because of
insufficient and arbitrary testing. By everyone involved, including
myself. My personal "excuse" is that I consider a running postfix such
a basic element that I just can't imagine needing to test it. Mea
culpa.

On the other hand a detailed test plan with test cases would be great
to have - I'm sure the opensuse-testing team would welcome any actual
help to make 12.2 better.

A fully fledged test plan is a lot of work, not including writing the
test cases - to get commitment from

a) people to write and maintain a plan and
b) people to write and maintain test-cases,

I submit we would have to create a hard link between the release and the
status of testing. If a release goes ahead despite test-status
being "negative", I think anyone testing or maintaining the test plan
will feel ignored and be unlikely to participate again.



--
Per Jessen, Zürich (3.0°C)

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@xxxxxxxxxxxx

< Previous Next >
This Thread