1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
|
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE> [Mageia-dev] bug 2317 revisited: --update option should behave like --search-media
</TITLE>
<LINK REL="Index" HREF="index.html" >
<LINK REL="made" HREF="mailto:mageia-dev%40mageia.org?Subject=Re%3A%20%5BMageia-dev%5D%20bug%202317%20revisited%3A%20--update%20option%20should%20behave%0A%20like%20--search-media&In-Reply-To=%3C4FE456DA.1040505%40laposte.net%3E">
<META NAME="robots" CONTENT="index,nofollow">
<META http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<LINK REL="Previous" HREF="016761.html">
<LINK REL="Next" HREF="016742.html">
</HEAD>
<BODY BGCOLOR="#ffffff">
<H1>[Mageia-dev] bug 2317 revisited: --update option should behave like --search-media</H1>
<B>andre999</B>
<A HREF="mailto:mageia-dev%40mageia.org?Subject=Re%3A%20%5BMageia-dev%5D%20bug%202317%20revisited%3A%20--update%20option%20should%20behave%0A%20like%20--search-media&In-Reply-To=%3C4FE456DA.1040505%40laposte.net%3E"
TITLE="[Mageia-dev] bug 2317 revisited: --update option should behave like --search-media">andre999mga at laposte.net
</A><BR>
<I>Fri Jun 22 13:28:26 CEST 2012</I>
<P><UL>
<LI>Previous message: <A HREF="016761.html">[Mageia-dev] bug 2317 revisited: --update option should behave like --search-media
</A></li>
<LI>Next message: <A HREF="016742.html">[Mageia-dev] bug 2317 revisited: --update option should behave like --search-media
</A></li>
<LI> <B>Messages sorted by:</B>
<a href="date.html#16746">[ date ]</a>
<a href="thread.html#16746">[ thread ]</a>
<a href="subject.html#16746">[ subject ]</a>
<a href="author.html#16746">[ author ]</a>
</LI>
</UL>
<HR>
<!--beginarticle-->
<PRE>AL13N a écrit :
>><i> On 21/06/12 22:01, AL13N wrote:
</I>>><i>
</I>><i> [...]
</I>><i>
</I>>><i> All this assumes that backport media will be treated as a normal update
</I>>><i> media. That is certainly not my impression. My impression of backports
</I>>><i> are being able to install a new blender for example, not having a system
</I>>><i> where backports are just another update media and replace everything
</I>>><i> available. The QA task for that scenario would be ridiculously huge. If
</I>>><i> you want to have backports which go any further than backports testing
</I>>><i> then you seriously need to rethink this idea.
</I>>><i>
</I>><i> [...]
</I>><i>
</I>>><i> The aim of fixing this bug is to reduce the complexity and extra
</I>>><i> workload of working around it for QA. This assumption and solution
</I>>><i> actually has the opposite effect, dramatically increasing the complexity
</I>>><i> and workload. As I've explained, that is simply not possible if we want
</I>>><i> to release timely updates.
</I>>><i>
</I>>><i> I hope this makes the situation clearer. There is a workable solution
</I>>><i> but I'm afraid it isn't this one, for the reasons given above.
</I>>><i>
</I>><i> No offense, but i think it didn't make myself clear and as a result i
</I>><i> think you are not understanding this properly.
</I>><i>
</I>><i> my proposal is actually to make sure QA only needs to test twice for each
</I>><i> package (both updates and backports).
</I>><i>
</I>><i> "My impression of backports are being able to install a new blender for
</I>><i> example"
</I>><i>
</I>><i> this exact idea that you have, will make QA testing unworkable. let me try
</I>><i> to explain:
</I>><i>
</I>><i> suppose that only blender and firefox and gimp and java is backported. any
</I>><i> kind of combination would have to be tested to be able to support
</I>><i> backports:
</I>><i> - testing backports blender on a system without backports
</I>><i> - testing backports blender on a system with backports and only firefox
</I>><i> installed from backports
</I>><i> - testing backports blender on a system with backports and only gimp
</I>><i> installed from backports
</I>><i> - testing backports blender on a system with backports and only java
</I>><i> installed from backports
</I>><i> - testing backports blender on a system with backports and both firefox
</I>><i> and gimp installed from backports
</I>><i> - testing backports blender on a system with backports and both firefox
</I>><i> and java installed from backports
</I>><i> - testing backports blender on a system with backports and both gimp and
</I>><i> java installed from backports
</I>><i> - testing backports blender on a system with backports and firefox and
</I>><i> gimp and java installed from backports
</I>><i>
</I>><i> This for each arch: thus 16 tests.
</I>><i>
</I>
This analysis makes absolutely no sense.
All "cherry-picking" backports means is that a user can choose to
install only one or several backport packages, just as a user can
install only one or several optional release packages, or one or several
proposed updates.
Do you really think that QA tests release blender with/without firefox
installed, with/without gimp installed, etc ? Considering that there
are a lot more than 5 optional packages in a release, that would make an
incredible number of tests.
><i> This amount of tests is a direct result of trying to support backports
</I>><i> when you can have any single backported package installed, that you want.
</I>><i>
</I>><i> you'd have to test this because in case of new dependencies, it could even
</I>><i> conflict during installation!!!
</I>><i>
</I>><i> and the biggest problem is that the same problem exists when having an
</I>><i> update that has a new dependency. Thus, the same tests should be done for
</I>><i> updates as well.
</I>><i>
</I>><i> all of this, just to support backports being cherry-picked.
</I>><i>
</I>
Just think what is meant by "cherry-picked".
><i> I'd rather have unsupported backports.
</I>><i>
</I>><i> My proposal (B2) is a compromise that has only supporting backports if you
</I>><i> use it for everything, and has only 2 tests per package. THE SAME AS WE DO
</I>><i> NOW!
</I>><i>
</I>
Which is all that is ever needed.
><i> to repeat: i'm trying to propose a solution that makes QA have NO INCREASE
</I>><i> of workload.
</I>><i>
</I>
It does increase the total workload, as each backport package has to be
tested in the release to which it applies. But only one test per
architecture.
Don't forget that backports will be leaf packages (or a set of related
packages on which nothing else is dependant), so they will be simpler to
test.
><i> the only extra point, is that for validating:
</I>><i>
</I>><i> right now, you're asking if it's tested for both i586 and x86_64.
</I>><i>
</I>><i> for B2, this is still the same, except that i586 should have backports
</I>><i> disabled and x86_64 have backports enabled.
</I>><i>
</I>><i> I hope this is clearer now
</I>><i>
</I>
--
André
</PRE>
<!--endarticle-->
<HR>
<P><UL>
<!--threads-->
<LI>Previous message: <A HREF="016761.html">[Mageia-dev] bug 2317 revisited: --update option should behave like --search-media
</A></li>
<LI>Next message: <A HREF="016742.html">[Mageia-dev] bug 2317 revisited: --update option should behave like --search-media
</A></li>
<LI> <B>Messages sorted by:</B>
<a href="date.html#16746">[ date ]</a>
<a href="thread.html#16746">[ thread ]</a>
<a href="subject.html#16746">[ subject ]</a>
<a href="author.html#16746">[ author ]</a>
</LI>
</UL>
<hr>
<a href="https://www.mageia.org/mailman/listinfo/mageia-dev">More information about the Mageia-dev
mailing list</a><br>
</body></html>
|
