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
|
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
<br>
by <strong><a
href="https://forums.mageia.org/en/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=646">corbintech</a></strong>
» Jun 13th, '11, 22:12
<div class="content">I quit the ML because I was not doing it right
(never used a list like that before).<br>
<br>
So if I may, I will post here what somebody responded to me and
write my response here.<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="uncited">
<div>complete rolling release would put a QA strain on each of
the levels. think <br>
about it, it's not only the current package being updated, but
also the <br>
combinations with other packages. (AND also all the long time
supported <br>
versions)<br>
<br>
This would mean that for each package being release, it'll
have to work with <br>
the current set of other packages, but also with the packages
you'll be doing <br>
next.<br>
<br>
if you have this constant level of QA, you need alot of
resources (which we <br>
don't have in QA), and as an extra result, you'll not have the
same level of <br>
QA you could have, when you're doing a release.<br>
<br>
it's much easier (as devs) to just choose a subset of
packages, and test those <br>
out.<br>
<br>
if you have X QA-devs, and you have 1 subset of versions of
packages, you can <br>
test alot more than if you have several versions of several
packages that need <br>
to work all with each other in almost any combinations...<br>
<br>
not to mention that you need an extra step with QA to put a
"group" of <br>
packages from one level to the next...<br>
<br>
sorry, but with our current resources, i vote no. i want
current resources to <br>
be used much more efficiently than with a rolling release.</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
Why do we keep acting like there is no other way to pool
resources? I have never helped develop in any way, teach me
something and I'll lend a hand... Others may do the same.. ASK!<br>
<br>
QA comes from testing... Test... Test... And test more... To make
sure what you have works and works well. Let's change up my idea a
bit and satisfy everyone... Let's compromise... <br>
<br>
How about Cooker (or whatever you call) rolls to rolling (can be
very stable???!!!) with release cycle releases based on a snapshot
of either of the rolling models and supported for X amount of
time? This could make those whom want a rolling release model
happy and those whom want a release cycle.<br>
<br>
Would this be hard? I don't really think so as development is
already based on a rolling model (cooker or whatever), all that
will have to be done is packages roll down the line. I seen in the
start of all these talks you wanted to support 3 structures of
systems... Here they are!<br>
<br>
What about this? Get the community involved!</div>
</body>
</html>
|
